Prayers - 
[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Virtual participation in proceedings commenced (Order, 4 June).
[NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.]

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

The Secretary of State was asked—

Hong Kong: National Security Law

Robbie Moore: What assessment he has made of the effect of the National Security Law on the people of Hong Kong.

Andrew Rosindell: What assessment he has made of the effect of the national security law on the people of Hong Kong.

Nigel Adams: We have been clear that the national security law has had a chilling effect on society and that it constitutes a clear and serious breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. It contains a range of measures that directly threaten the freedoms and rights protected by the joint declaration. In response to the national security law, the UK has offered a new immigration path for British nationals, suspended our extradition treaty and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We urge the Chinese and Hong Kong authorities to abide by their international human rights obligations.

Robbie Moore: In July, books by pro-democracy figures were removed from public libraries, and just last week Hong Kong’s leader, Carrie Lam, said that it was important to
“weed out the bad apples”
from the education system in response to a teacher “promoting Hong Kong independence”. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK reserves the right to take further action to safeguard the rights of those in Hong Kong, especially if the human rights situation continues to deteriorate further?

Nigel Adams: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken clear action in response to the national security law, including, as I said, offering a new immigration path for British national overseas passport holders, suspending our extradition treaty and extending our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We will continue to bring together our international partners   to ensure that we stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and to hold China to its international obligations.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Minister agree that the national security law in Hong Kong has infringed the rights of many Hongkongers and broken international law by breaching the joint declaration? Will he now either urgently review his Magnitsky sanctions regime or outline how he intends to target those who instigate such appalling human rights abuses against this once proud British Crown colony?

Nigel Adams: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. As he will know, on 6 July we established our global human rights Magnitsky sanctions regime, and it is under constant review. However, he will be aware that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under any future sanctions regime, because to do so would reduce the impact of those designations.

Stephen Kinnock: Successive Conservative Governments since 2010 have been naive and complacent in their dealings with the Chinese Government. The resulting combination of over-dependence on China-based supply chains and the breaking of important international alliances has diminished our ability to exert influence on Beijing. Yet, despite these failings, there is clearly more that the UK could be doing for the people of Hong Kong. Will the Minister specify what the Government plan to do regarding citizenship for Hongkongers born after 1997? What consular support can he provide to the four BNO passport holders who are now detained in mainland China after attempting to flee? Will he commit to sanctioning the senior mainland Chinese Communist party and Hong Kong Executive officials who have been committing human rights abuses? It took the Government just days to sanction Belarusian officials. What, or who, is causing this delay?

Nigel Adams: We are working closely with the Home Office on our response for the BNOs, and there will be much more detail coming out in due course.
With regard to the cases that the hon. Member raises, we have raised the cases of the people detained in Shenzhen with the Chinese authorities in Hong Kong, and we have made it clear that due process should be followed. The rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong, including their rights to freedom of speech and assembly, are expressly guaranteed in the joint declaration, and rights committed to under the declaration must be upheld. Under the memoranda to the joint declaration, BNOs are entitled to consular assistance in third countries, but not in Hong Kong, Macau or mainland China. The Chinese authorities do not recognise dual nationality, and absolutely would not grant UK consular access for those individuals. On sanctions, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell).

Trinidad and Tobago: Repatriation

Steven Baker: What steps he is taking to assist the authorities in Trinidad and Tobago to repatriate their citizens stranded in the UK as a result of the closure of that country’s borders in response to the covid-19 pandemic.

Wendy Morton: The Trinidad and Tobago Government decided to close their borders on 22 March due to covid-19, and they remain closed. Consular support for Trinidad and Tobago nationals remains the responsibility of their Government. However, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials are in close contact with the Trinidad and Tobago authorities, and we advise all Trinidad and Tobago nationals to contact their high commission in London for assistance.

Steven Baker: I have Trinidad and Tobago citizens in my constituency who are burning through their savings and really terrified about failing to get home to protect their homes and businesses from the approaching severe weather. Will the Minister join me in calling on Trinidad and Tobago to ensure that their citizens get home? I think it is common humanity to enable people to return to protect their homes.

Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend raises an important point about people in his constituency. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has alerted the Trinidad and Tobago high commission to cases of stranded Trinidad and Tobago nationals whom we have been made aware of, and has supported affected individuals to contact the high commission directly. It is also important to say that we are in regular contact with our counterparts in Trinidad and Tobago.

Education for Girls

Nickie Aiken: What assessment he has made of the effect of the covid-19 pandemic on progress in implementing the Government’s policy on ensuring that girls throughout the world receive 12 years of quality education.

Wendy Morton: About 650 million girls were removed from primary and secondary education at the pandemic’s peak, and some risk dropping out of school permanently, so we must mobilise global investment and commitment to get education back on track and defeat the global learning crisis. The UK is proud to be co-hosting the Global Partnership for Education 2021 financing conference. We have adapted our education aid programming, and have committed new funding to UNICEF, Education Cannot Wait and the United Nations Population Fund to address the impacts of covid-19 on women and girls. We will use our presidency of the G7 next year to rally the international community for greater support for girls’ education.

Nickie Aiken: I certainly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday about the summit on global education. One reason girls are prevented from receiving education is that they are forced into child marriage. A recent Save the Children report revealed that a further 2.5 million girls are at risk of being forced into marriage by 2025 because of the current pandemic. With that in mind, will the Minister assure me that the FCDO will ensure that programmes to end the heinous practice  of child marriage are at the centre of international development strategy?

Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and ending child marriage is key to delivering the Prime Minister’s commitment of championing 12 years of quality education for girls. Since 2015, our £39 million flagship programme has helped to reach just under 40 million people with information designed to change attitudes towards child marriage. The UK will continue to use its development programmes and global leadership to end child marriage.

Preet Kaur Gill: Yesterday, the Prime Minister spoke about his manifesto commitment that every child should have the best possible chance to have an education, yet development spending on primary education has been cut by more than 27% this year, which is evidence of a Government without a strategic direction who cannot be trusted to deliver on their rhetoric. Will the Minister tell us whether the Prime Minister is aware that the Foreign Secretary is cancelling and postponing programmes that would enable girls to have a safe education, such as the one investing in adolescent girls in Rwanda?

Wendy Morton: The UK is a world leader in both our educational expertise and our development spend, and during the official development assistance prioritisation process difficult but necessary decisions were made to meet our 0.7% ODA commitment. However, the process has ensured continued support and commitment to ODA priorities, including girls’ education. On Rwanda, the issue was raised with the Prime Minister at the Liaison Committee. A tough decision was taken, but the UK has protected schools and education spending across the world. We continue to support women and girls in Rwanda to have a decent education, and our spend in the country is expected to total approximately £13.6 million.

Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel

Andrew Slaughter: With reference to the resolution of the House of 13 October 2014, what steps the Government are taking to recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.

Caroline Ansell: What diplomatic steps he is taking to help secure peace between Israel and the Palestinian people.

James Cleverly: The UK is a strong supporter of Palestinian state building efforts. In 2019, we spent £81 million in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Part of that contribution is helping to build Palestinian state institutions; fostering private sector-led sustainable economic growth; and providing technical assistance to strengthen the Palestinian Authority’s financial management. However, such progress can never be a substitute for a political settlement, which is why the Foreign Secretary visited Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in August actively to encourage Israel and the Palestinian leadership to renew co-operation and work together. I also discussed this matter with UN special co-ordinator Mladenov on 1 October.

Andrew Slaughter: That is not an answer. Six years ago today, this House voted by 274 votes to 12 to recognise the state of Palestine. Three years ago, the Prime Minister, then Foreign Secretary, said that
“you have to have a two-state solution or else you have some kind of apartheid system”.
How can there be a two-state solution without two states? The UK’s recognition of the state of Israel shows that we respect its non-negotiable rights. Why should our recognition of the state of Palestine be a matter for negotiation? Are Palestinians entitled to less respect and fewer rights than the Israelis?

James Cleverly: As I have said, the UK Government have supported the Palestinian Authority in putting in place the building blocks for a future Palestinian state, which we recognise. We have been very vocal that our preferred option is a safe, stable two-state solution, with a prosperous and peaceful Palestinian state neighbouring a prosperous and peaceful Israeli state.

Caroline Ansell: The middle east is changing before our eyes and the significance of Israel’s peace agreements with the UAE and Bahrain cannot be overstated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this new development between Israel and her Arab neighbours changes the narrative, creates a new dynamic in the region, and gives rise to new hope for a peace deal?

James Cleverly: The normalisation of relations represents a move towards peace in the region, and the UK strongly welcomes that. We encourage other states to choose the same path, but, ultimately, there is no substitute for direct talks between the Palestinians and Israel, which is the only way to reach a two-state solution and a lasting peace. We do hope that normalisation can encourage dialogue between the parties and the UK stands ready to support such efforts.

FCO/DFID Merger

Tony Lloyd: What the Government's policy is on promoting human rights, democracy building and the rule of law internationally, following the merger of his Department and the Department for International Development.

Nigel Adams: The UK is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law acting as a force for good in the world. The UK is one of the longest standing members of the Human Rights Council, and we are aiming to maintain that record at today’s election. Another good example is our recent activity at the UN on China, which shows our commitment to defending human rights in Xinjiang.

Tony Lloyd: I welcome the Minister’s words, but may I refer him and his words to the situation in Colombia where, since the signing of the peace deal in 2016, we have seen hundreds of human rights defenders, civic leaders, trade unionists and former FARC—Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia—members murdered, and where the fragile democratic process saw the FARC move from the armed struggle to the political process. Will the Minister commit to making Colombia a priority for this Government and will he or one of his colleagues commit to meeting a small delegation of MPs who are concerned about Colombia?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is absolutely right to raise this matter. We believe that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are the absolute foundations on which open, stable and prosperous societies thrive. I am more than happy to commit on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue.

Sarah Champion: The International Development Committee is currently holding an inquiry into sexual abuse and exploitation by aid workers of the beneficiaries, and I am ashamed to report that we are finding that it is rife. I welcome the fact that the new Department has brought forward a safeguarding document as one of its first publications. However, will the Minister please comment on why the FCDO’s terms and conditions for staff say:
“Sexual relations with beneficiaries are strongly discouraged”?
Why is this not gross misconduct when there is an obvious power imbalance, and what will the Minister do to remedy this immediately?

Nigel Adams: I thank the hon. Lady for raising a very important issue. I do not have those terms and conditions in front of me, but I am more than happy to meet her to discuss what sounds like an incredibly serious point that she has raised.

Stephen Doughty: Of course, what the Minister forgets is that the reason we are getting a seat on the UN Human Rights Council today is that the seat is uncontested. We actually have no representatives—a historic low—on any of the main committees of the 10 United Nations human rights treaty bodies and we have already failed to get elected to the International Court of Justice for the first time since world war two. Human rights barrister Amal Clooney resigned as a UK envoy, saying that it was untenable for her to urge other states to respect and enforce international obligations when the UK declares that it does not intend to do so itself. With so many crucial human rights abuses that we should be rightly taking leadership on, does the Minister accept that we undermine our position when his fellow Ministers undermine the rule of law and our commitment to human rights?

Nigel Adams: No, I do not accept that whatsoever. We have clearly set out our reasons for introducing the measures related to the Northern Ireland protocol. We need to create a legal safety net to protect the integrity of our internal market and ensure that we can deliver on our obligations. The UK Internal Market Bill is a defensive, precautionary and proportionate measure to safeguard the integrity of the United Kingdom.

Amazon Rain Forest

Chris Elmore: What recent representations he has made to his Brazilian counterpart on climate change and protection of the Amazon rain forest.

Wendy Morton: On 7 October, the Foreign Secretary held a strategic dialogue with his Brazilian counterpart which covered a number of topics of mutual interest, including trade, security and human rights. The Foreign Secretary raised the issue of climate change and the need to protect the Amazon from further deforestation. We run major programmes on sustainable agriculture and deforestation with various stakeholders in Brazil that totalled £259 million between 2012 and 2020. Climate change is one of the most important global issues, and international co-operation is vital to tackling it. As COP26 president, the UK will continue to work in partnership with Brazil on this important issue.

Chris Elmore: Some 58.4% of the Amazon rain forest sits within Brazilian borders. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary is raising the issue of climate change, but it is not one of the greatest issues facing the world; it is the biggest issue facing the world. Coronavirus is bad, but the longer-term problems of climate change could consume various countries around the world through flooding or deforestation. With COP26 now moved to next year, will the Minister make far more robust representations—not just to the Brazilian Government, but to many South American Governments—about the prioritisation of stopping illegal logging and the process of deforestation?

Wendy Morton: As I said in my previous answer, the Foreign Secretary had a strategic dialogue with his Brazilian counterpart, and both countries have affirmed that they will work to ensure that the COP delivers substantial negotiated outcomes in the fight against climate change. We believe that climate change is one of the most important global issues, and will be working not just with Brazil but with other countries to tackle this important issue.

Iran: BBC Persian Journalists

Fiona Bruce: What recent representations he has made to the Iranian authorities on the intimidation of BBC Persian journalists in that country.

James Cleverly: The attacks against BBC Persian employees and their families, and threats to an entirely legitimate media organisation, are unacceptable. We raise this harassment regularly with the Iranian Government, as well as at the Human Rights Council. We will continue to defend BBC Persian’s editorial independence. We most recently raised our concerns about media freedom in Iran in an E3 Foreign Ministers’ letter to Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif on 22 September.

Fiona Bruce: I thank the Minister for that reply and for sharing the concerns about this serious issue. Will he give us some information on what responses the Foreign Office has received from the Iranian authorities to such representations? The BBC journalists themselves get very little feedback on this issue.

James Cleverly: Sadly, the Iranian authorities have yet to provide any kind of justification for their actions that stand up to scrutiny. Their behaviour is indefensible,  and we are confident that our Iranian contacts, including Foreign Minister Zarif, fully understand our concerns and our condemnation of such harassment.

Nagorno-Karabakh

Barry Gardiner: What proposals the Government have put forward to the UN Security Council on a resolution to the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Wendy Morton: We remain deeply concerned about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, and call on all parties to take every measure possible to protect civilians. That is why, on 29 September, the UK called for discussion at the UN Security Council. The day before that, on 28 September, I spoke to both the Azerbaijani and the Armenian Foreign Ministers to urge a return to dialogue under the OSCE Minsk group to ensure a peaceful and sustainable settlement.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister will know that there are more Azeris living in Iran than there are in Azerbaijan—some 50 million of them, who hold great sway and influence. Russia, on the other hand, is firmly committed to supporting Armenia in this conflict, and that could see the Russian and Iranian co-operation in the Syrian war come under severe strain. What concerns does the Minister have about the potential for Iran to become embroiled in the dispute, and what steps is her Department taking to avoid that situation?

Wendy Morton: As I clearly indicated, we remain very concerned about this conflict, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise it. That is why we are continuing to work to urge both parties back to the table to have dialogue, and to use the Minsk process to further that.

Alyn Smith: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I have two very concrete points. We are all concerned about the risk of a proxy war within this, because there are more than two sides to the conflict. What steps are the UK Government taking to make sure that no UK-made armaments, or indeed UK citizens, are finding their way into this theatre?

Wendy Morton: Again, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise this important point. On armaments, we have export licences in place and a very rigorous process to deal with applications with regard to any country, and that is always kept under careful and continual review. We are aware of many media reports that other countries are providing military support, for example, but we absolutely maintain a commitment to encouraging and urging both sides to come back to the table and have the dialogue that is needed.

Alyn Smith: I gently suggest that there is something for us to follow up in that, because there is a great deal of concern that UK armaments and people are finding their way into this theatre.
On a wider point, does the Minister share my concern about Turkey’s increasingly belligerent statements in the wider region? She will be aware of yesterday’s statement by the EU High Representative, Josep Borrell, about  the retaking of the Varosha settlement in northern Cyprus, which continues to be illegally occupied. What discussions is she having with Ankara in order to strongly stress our defence of international law?

Wendy Morton: In terms of Turkey, the Defence Secretary discussed the conflict during a recent visit to Ankara and again agreed that de-escalation was the best option for all. I reiterate that, as the Foreign Secretary has said on previous occasions, we urge all external parties and friends of both states to redouble their efforts in support for an end to these hostilities and to refrain from taking actions that risk deepening the crisis. As co-chair of the Minsk group, Russia has a role in working to end the conflict too.

Catherine West: Further to the question of Nagorno-Karabakh, obviously the ceasefire is very fragile, and with the use of foreign fighters from Iraq and Syria, there is a real risk of escalation. What steps are the Government taking to ensure a return to dialogue, as ultimately only through dialogue can this dreadful conflict come to an end? Specifically on Turkey and Russia, what urgent discussions are being carried out in order to try to get them to stop their arms sales so that that does not increase the militarisation and the number of civilians who are tragically being killed in the region?

Wendy Morton: The hon. Lady makes a very important point reinforcing the need for dialogue. The Foreign Secretary issued two statements with Canadian Foreign Minister Champagne, most recently on 6 October, calling for an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table under the auspices of the OSCE group. On 28 September, the Prime Minister spoke to President Erdoğan and discussed the recent escalation. On 2 October, I spoke to Turkish Deputy Foreign Minister Önal to register concerns at the military escalation. We have been engaging with the co-chairs of the Minsk group—the French, the US and Russia. I will continue to reach  out to my counterparts—both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministers—to reinforce the UK’s support for de-escalation and a return to dialogue.

UK Internal Market Bill: Diplomacy

Alan Brown: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK Internal Market Bill on the effectiveness of UK diplomacy.

Martin Docherty: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK Internal Market Bill on the effectiveness of UK diplomacy.

Patricia Gibson: What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect of the UK Internal Market Bill on the effectiveness of UK diplomacy.

Dominic Raab: We continue to work with the EU in the Joint Committee to resolve outstanding issues in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol.

Alan Brown: Last week the Foreign Secretary told the Foreign Affairs Committee that no one he has met thinks that the UK is not a defender of international law. The reality is that a fellow Cabinet member has admitted that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill breaks international law. The reality on the ground is that 27 EU countries have begun legal proceedings against the UK, and in the US both sides of Congress have said that they will not support a Bill that breaks the international rules-based order. When will the Foreign Secretary see reality and admit that the UK is acting like a rogue state?

Dominic Raab: No, I do not agree with that. The measures in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill are a defensive, precautionary and proportionate, to safeguard the integrity of the UK. I was in Washington recently and had very constructive conversations on both sides of the aisle on the hill.

Martin Docherty: The way that the Government have used the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to allow the United Kingdom to abrogate an international treaty in recent weeks has seen the UK take a step away from being a normative power committed to an international rules-based order. As my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal now faces his third anniversary in custody without charge in India, will the Secretary of State at least tell both my constituent and the House how he and his Government seek to remind the Republic of India of its obligations under international law, given that his own Government have so flagrantly disrespected it?

Dominic Raab: I am afraid I just do not accept the assertion, and I do not accept the equivalence. We have very clear understandings in relation to the positions we take in terms of consular access and upholding human rights. We engage with the Indian Government and other Governments right across the world. I have never had the pushback the hon. Member describes.

Patricia Gibson: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), can the Secretary of State specifically outline how and in what ways he believes the United Kingdom International Market Bill strengthens the international credibility of the UK, given that it is in breach of international law?

Dominic Raab: I thank the hon. Lady. As I have made clear, the Bill is a defensive, precautionary measure to safeguard the integrity of the UK. If the hon. Lady wants to know what people outside the United Kingdom and the EU say about the United Kingdom when it comes to upholding the international rule of law, perhaps she would like to listen to Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the Belarusian opposition leader, who said on 5 October in an interview:
“I am really grateful to the United Kingdom. For them to be so vocal, for them to be so brave, for them to be so strong in their position—it was all action. The United Kingdom has really shown itself as an example to the whole world.”
That is what they say about the United Kingdom outside the EU.

Thomas Tugendhat: My right hon. Friend is rightly addressing the rule of law in a particular negotiation. Will he recognise, however, that the negotiations we are conducting around the   world, including with the Japanese Government and the beginning of the conversation with the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership will rely on the UK making deals that will endure the future? Those deals will only endure truly if the UK holds together and values all parts of this United Kingdom. Will he recognise, therefore, that his role is to promote the voices of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland together to make sure all those four nations achieve the best for the whole United Kingdom?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have just signed a deal with Japan, and we have signed a continuity deal with South Korea. We are looking at a second one, and we have ambitions for scoping talks in relation to that, so that we can improve in areas such as data. We are making good progress on Vietnam. That is precisely the way in trade negotiations we will represent the businesses and consumers of all four nations of the United Kingdom, and that is the way we will continue.

Climate Change: International Co-operation

Stephen Metcalfe: What progress the Government have made through international co-operation on tackling climate change.

Duncan Baker: What progress the Government have made through international co-operation on tackling climate change.

James Duddridge: The Government are fully committed to independent parliamentary scrutiny in this House. The Foreign Secretary has already announced our commitment to maintaining the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. He has also announced a departmental review to make ICAI even more effective, leveraging what works and producing more practical recommendations. This will make scrutiny stronger.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. What steps is he is taking to deliver the COP 26 goals when he engages with foreign Governments around the world?

James Duddridge: May I apologise to the House? In my enthusiasm sharing a joke with you, Mr Speaker, I had the wrong page on my briefing and so answered in advance the question tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I apologise to the House for my enthusiasm.
I thank my constituency near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), for his question. We are committed to COP 26 through the presidency of G7 next year. We will be urging Governments to be bold in what they are hoping to achieve. Indeed, we are co-hosting events with the UN on 12 December to mark the fifth anniversary of the climate agreement.

Duncan Baker: I will not be thrown off course.
With the United Kingdom being the fastest country in the G7 to decarbonise, it is quite apparent that this Government are leading the world in tackling climate  change, but our efforts will pale into insignificance if other nations around the world do not face up to their own responsibilities. What efforts is my hon. Friend making to ensure that everybody plays their part?

James Duddridge: It is important that everybody plays their part and that there is collective action. My hon. Friend may be alluding, in part, to China. I warmly received China’s commitment—in particular, its intent to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.

Transition Period: Cabinet Discussions

Simon Jupp: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on progress in ensuring that the UK is prepared for the end of the transition period.

Suzanne Webb: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on progress in ensuring that the UK is prepared for the end of the transition period.

Mark Eastwood: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on progress in ensuring that the UK is prepared for the end of the transition period.

Simon Baynes: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on progress in ensuring that the UK is prepared for the end of the transition period.

Lee Anderson: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on progress in ensuring that the UK is prepared for the end of the transition period.

Wendy Morton: It remains our intention and our hope to reach an agreement with the EU, but as a responsible Government, we continue to make extensive preparations for a wide range of scenarios. The two Cabinet Committees focused on EU exit strategy and operations meet regularly to discuss the Government’s work, to ensure that the UK is prepared for the end of the transition period.

Simon Jupp: I thank the Minister for her response. The new Department will no doubt have a busy autumn, as it looks to seize the many opportunities that lay ahead. What discussions have been held with the Department for International Trade to ensure that the Government sing from the same hymn sheet in their future trade negotiations on food, animal welfare and environmental standards?

Wendy Morton: I can assure my hon. Friend that FCDO Ministers are in regular contact with DIT colleagues on a range of trade-related issues. The UK Government have been consistently clear that we will never sign   a trade deal that would compromise the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. All existing food safety provisions will be retained.

Suzanne Webb: Two thirds of my constituents in Stourbridge voted to leave the EU—“Roll on 31 December” is the message I hear loud and clear. Does the Minister agree that we must strongly back the Government’s negotiating position to deliver a trade deal that takes back control of our money, laws and borders, but that we should not be afraid to fall back on an Australian-style arrangement if necessary?

Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend asks an important question. We continue to work hard towards reaching an agreement with the EU. We want a deal with free trade provisions similar to those that the EU agreed with Canada, and if that is not possible, we will have a trading relationship similar to how Australia trades with the EU. Either way, we will be leaving the single market and the customs union.

Mark Eastwood: The United Kingdom has a proud history of defending human rights. Does the Minister agree that a key benefit of leaving the European Union for our foreign policy is the ability to put in place our own independent sanctions regime, allowing us to go further on human rights than the EU?

Wendy Morton: Yes, the UK will indeed pursue an independent sanctions policy driven by our foreign policy objectives. We established a global human rights sanctions regime on 6 July, which gives us new powers to fight those involved in serious human rights abuses. The sanctions we recently imposed on individuals in Belarus are a good example. Sanctions are best delivered, though, through collective action, and we will continue to work with EU and other international partners.

Simon Baynes: Does the Minister agree that the end of the transition period will herald a global Britain with more freedom to follow our own path in the world, to the benefit of my constituents in Clwyd South?

Wendy Morton: Yes. At the end of this year, the process of transition will be complete, and we will recover our economic and political independence. That is why we did not extend the transition period. We need to be able to design our own rules in our best interests, without the constraints of following the EU.

Lee Anderson: The UK now has a new role outside the EU as global Britain. Will my hon. Friend advise the people of Ashfield what the FCDO’s priorities should be in the future?

Wendy Morton: The Government’s integrated review, which is ongoing, will define the UK’s role in the world and the longer-term strategic aims for our national security and foreign policy following our departure from the European Union. We are committed to the UK being a force for good in the world, defending open societies, free trade, democracy and human rights.

South China Sea

Scott Mann: What recent assessment he has made of the effect on regional security of China’s actions in the South China sea.

Nigel Adams: On 3 September, I reiterated our concern about reports of militarisation, coercion and intimidation in the South China sea, and I called on all parties to refrain from activity likely to raise tensions. Given the importance we attach to  the UN convention on the law of the sea, I also put our comprehensive legal position on the SCS on public record for the first time.

Scott Mann: China’s brazen human rights abuses and its increasingly assertive behaviour internationally are both deeply disturbing issues. In the light of this behaviour, what consideration has the Department given to the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy to safeguard British friends and interests in south-east Asia?

Nigel Adams: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. I would remind him that, on 6 October, 39 countries joined in a statement at the UN Third Committee expressing deep concern at the human rights situation in Xinjiang, Hong Kong and Tibet. This growing caucus willing to speak out reflects the UK’s diplomatic leadership. The tilt to the Indo-Pacific is a key ambition for our integrated review. It will outline the UK’s intention to become a long-term partner to south Asian and Asia-Pacific countries. We are already working to develop closer partnerships with the region through our bid to achieve Association of Southeast Asian Nations dialogue partnership status. The Foreign Secretary visited Hanoi recently, and that was high on our agenda. We are also keen to pursue our accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.

President of Belarus

Michael Fabricant: What comparative assessment he has made of the ability of the (a) UK and (b) EU to impose sanctions on the President of Belarus.

Dominic Raab: The UK does not accept the results of the rigged presidential election in Belarus. We have worked with our international partners to promote a peaceful resolution. We have condemned the actions of the Belarusian authorities, and we hold those responsible for human rights abuses to account.

Michael Fabricant: Everybody’s favourite continental politician Guy Verhofstadt expressed his huge frustration with the European Union recently, surprisingly enough, when he said that unlike the United Kingdom and Canada, which have imposed sanctions on Belarus for the very reason that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has just said, the European Union has been unable to do so because of the unanimity rules. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the EU  foreign policy ability to impose things such as sanctions, and does he share my relief that the United Kingdom has now left the EU?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend. He makes a powerful point about the agility and the autonomy that we have with our new Magnitsky sanctions regime, and also some of the latitude we will have now we have left the EU. Equally, I co-ordinate closely with our European partners. He is right to say that the UK, with Canada, proceeded first, on 29 September, to impose targeted sanctions on Lukashenko’s son and six other senior Belarusian officials. I can, though, reassure my hon. Friend that the EU has followed our lead and, at the latest Foreign Affairs Council, announced that it will now follow that lead and impose sanctions on Lukashenko.

ASEAN Countries: UK Relations

Heather Wheeler: What diplomatic steps he is taking to strengthen UK relations with ASEAN countries.

Dominic Raab: I visited Vietnam last month, where we held the first UK-ASEAN Foreign Ministers meeting, discussing collaboration on covid, the green economic recovery and the UK’s application for dialogue partner status with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Heather Wheeler: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer so far. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to support new growth markets in the ASEAN region, such as Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, to ensure that the UK economy and UK businesses, especially South Derbyshire firms, feel the full benefit of global Britain?

Dominic Raab: First, I must congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment as trade envoy for Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. She will know that UK-ASEAN trade is already worth over £40 billion in 2019. There are huge opportunities to strengthen that. The International Trade Secretary was meeting ASEAN Economic and Trade Ministers last month. I have been out to ASEAN to talk about our partner dialogue status. We also have a broader ambition to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership.  All that, through our Indo-Pacific tilt, will increase opportunities for businesses and consumers in her constituency and across the whole United Kingdom.

Wales and Welsh Businesses

Jonathan Edwards: What steps he is taking to promote (a) Wales and (b) Welsh businesses internationally.

Wendy Morton: The FCDO works in partnership with the Department for International Trade, the office of the Secretary of State for Wales, and the Welsh Government, to promote Wales internationally. The GREAT Britain campaign, which is actively supported by our diplomatic posts overseas, showcases the very best of the whole UK, encouraging the world to visit, study, and do business  here, and generating jobs and growth for the UK economy. The GREAT challenge fund also promotes Welsh business and culture throughout the world. In the last financial year, more than 40 projects were promoting the devolved nations, including Wales.

Jonathan Edwards: Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. For some bizarre reason, the Conservative party in Wales is pledging to scrap the Welsh Government’s Department for International Relations and Development, yet the Federation of Small Businesses is calling for a greater international footprint by the Welsh Government. Will the Minister support the Welsh Government to expand their independent international presence, since many in Wales have little faith that so-called global Britain will even acknowledge the existence of Wales as a nation?

Wendy Morton: I reiterate our commitment to the work that we do to promote the UK as one whole UK—we are much bigger as one UK than in our parts. The Department for International Trade promotes British trade and investment across the world, and we are engaging regularly with the Welsh Government on their international offer to businesses in the devolved nations. The Department promotes capital projects in Wales to international investors, such as Cardiff’s Central Quay, and the new Shaping Swansea regeneration project.

Topical Questions

Jack Brereton: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Dominic Raab: Since the last oral questions, I have hosted my German and French counterparts at Chevening to discuss Iran and Belarus. I visited Washington where I met Vice-President Pence, Secretary of State Pompeo, and others, to discuss the free trade agreement and a whole range of foreign policy issues. In late September I visited South Korea and Vietnam to forge closer partnerships and discuss our application for ASEAN dialogue partner status.

Jack Brereton: With tensions increasing in the China-Pakistan-India border area, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are willing to redouble efforts to resolve the long-standing conflict in Jammu and Kashmir?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in this issue, and he will know that India and Pakistan are both long-standing and important friends of the United Kingdom. We have encouraged, and continue to encourage, both sides to engage in the dialogue that is necessary to find a lasting diplomatic solution to the situation in Kashmir, and to maintain regional stability. It is, of course, ultimately for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution, taking into account the wider issues of the people of Kashmir.

Lisa Nandy: The Foreign Secretary has said that the Chinese Government must accept  the responsibilities that come with being a leading  member of the international community, and he has  rightly highlighted the egregious human rights abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang. Since July, he has apparently been gathering evidence to impose targeted sanctions against the officials involved, but so far we have seen very little action. Today China is standing to be elected to the UN Human Rights Council. While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s willingness to speak out about this issue, surely, today of all days, we should take a clear moral stance and show that the UK has more than words at our disposal. Will he confirm that we will oppose China taking a seat on that council?

Dominic Raab: I suspect the hon. Lady will know that the UK has a long practice, under successive Governments, of not commenting on voting in UN elections that are conducted by secret ballot—[Interruption.] Never under a Labour Government: the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is wrong. The hon. Lady and I stand in total solidarity on the point of principle. We have unequivocally made clear to China our grave concern about Xinjiang. On 6 October, since we last met, the UK joined 38 other countries in the UN Third Committee to call on China to allow immediate and unfettered access to independent UN observers.

Lisa Nandy: May I say to the Foreign Secretary, who is a former human rightslawyer, that it is quite desperate and a sign of our diminished influence in the world  that the UK is not willing to take a stance on this important issue? We are deeply concerned about our relations with the rest of the world. Whether it is the covid vaccine, climate change, the Iran deal, west bank annexation, NATO or Scotch whisky, the Government appear to have no influence at all in Washington at the moment when we most need it. We are told that they  are now scrambling to repair the damage to relations with Joe Biden and his team. There is no greater indication of why that matters than the case of Harry Dunn. In July, the Foreign Secretary told the House he had reached an agreement with the US about immunity arrangements for Croughton annex. His repeated  refusal to publish that agreement has fuelled the family’s  anguish and underlined the widespread belief that his Department has chosen to side with the US Government over its own citizens. Why does he believe that neither Parliament nor the family of Harry Dunn should see the small print of this important agreement with the United States?

Dominic Raab: We did indeed change the arrangements, exactly as I undertook to the family and to the House. We also issued a written ministerial statement, which set out the terms. When the Labour party was in government, at two points when they reviewed the arrangements for Croughton, they did not make a WMS and they did not put into the public domain the memorandum of understanding. It has been standard practice not to do so and I think the hon. Lady knows that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I am going to say to both Front Benchers once again that from today onwards—just a warning—I will be stopping questions that are too long. Topicals are meant to be short and punchy for the benefit of everyone. I have got to get through a list. Please, let us help to make sure that other hon. Members get on it.

Imran Ahmad Khan: The merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development is a welcome acceptance that the UK’s outward-facing Departments should merge to best employ all the tools at our disposal. I detect, however, a concerning trend in the new FCDO for diplomacy and development to be regarded as separate and equal. Assimilating DFID’s obtuse culture into King Charles Street is dangerous and will cripple the Foreign Office’s ability to achieve its objectives. We must, above all, regard development as a foreign policy tool. Can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the current reform programme at the Foreign Office ensures that our development programme supports our diplomatic activities, rather than transcends and undermines them?

Dominic Raab: I reassure my hon. Friend that the raison d’être of the merger is to bring together our aid clout and heft with our diplomatic reach and muscle. If he looks at the visit I made to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, he will see the support we provided for the Palestinians in dealing with covid alongside our diplomatic support for a two-state solution; if he looks at the situation in Yemen, he will see that we are doing the same; and he will see the same in our response to  the explosion in the port of Beirut. I think he will find that we are practising what we preach, which brings together the aid—taxpayers’ money—with our diplomatic muscle to make a real difference on the ground.

Chris Stephens: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what representations the Government have made to the Turkish authorities over their latest silencing of political opposition, with the arrest of 82 members and office bearers of the Peoples’ Democratic Party, the HDP? Do the Government share the view of many of us that those actions are, once again, a fundamental violation of human rights against the Kurdish population?

Dominic Raab: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Turkey is a close NATO ally, but that has never stopped us from raising human rights across the whole range. We will obviously continue to do so as a part of our partnership.

Peter Bone: The Prime Minister set this Thursday as the deadline for achieving a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union. Foreign Secretary, what is the likelihood that on Thursday evening you will be popping champagne corks?

Dominic Raab: We have a European Council this week. The scope and the prospects for a deal are there. I am hopeful that we can close the gap, but ultimately it will require the same good will, the same pragmatism and the same flexibility on the EU side that the United Kingdom and this Prime Minister have shown.

Rachael Maskell: The reputation and effectiveness of DFID was built on strong scrutiny within Parliament. What progress has been made on establishing a Select Committee on official development assistance to review spending and ensure that every penny goes where it needs to reach?

Dominic Raab: I share the hon. Lady’s view about the importance of scrutiny. We have made clear our commitment to not just maintain but strengthen the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. Select Committees of the House are ultimately a matter for the usual channels and for the House, but we will make sure that the FCDO is willing to be scrutinised however the House decides.

Harriett Baldwin: I warmly welcome the announcement yesterday that the UK and Kenya will jointly host next year’s replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education. May I urge the Foreign Secretary, when we hold the G7 presidency next year, to put the campaign for 12 years of quality education as a top priority?

Dominic Raab: I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her work in government; I know her commitment on this issue. She will know that since 2015, the UK has supported 8 million girls to gain a decent education. What is important is not just the number, but the quality of education. Our global objective is to help 40 million girls into a decent education. That is a key focus of our use of ODA—this touches on the point about merging DFID and the Foreign Office—and it is also one of our top priorities for 2021, both with the summit that she mentioned and our G7 presidency.

Cat Smith: I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned that covid-19 has resulted in an increase in the persecution of Christians across the world, with reports that Christians are being denied food aid, access to personal protective equipment and in some places are even being blamed for the virus. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Christians and other religious minorities do not face additional discrimination in the distribution of aid because of their faith?

Dominic Raab: I absolutely agree with the concern that the hon. Lady has raised. Bringing ODA into the FCDO gives us the opportunity to raise these issues diplomatically, as well as to look very carefully at our aid budget. We are a member of the International Religious Freedom Alliance. We are looking to co-host one of the next summits, whether that is next year or the following year, depending on covid, and the issue that she raises will be very much at the top of our agenda.

Duncan Baker: Given the wider destabilising activities of Iran in the middle eastern region, what steps has my right hon. Friend taken to consider the use of sanctions against it, and what discussions has he had with our US ally?

James Cleverly: We continue to hold Iran to account for its destabilising activity in the region. We currently have over 200 EU sanctions listings in place against Iran, including against the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in its entirety. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and FCDO officials take every opportunity to discuss Iran with our US counterparts. As part of this regular dialogue, the Foreign Secretary last spoke to Secretary Pompeo on 16 September.

Toby Perkins: The Iranian regime routinely commits human rights atrocities and abuses against its people, with, recently, the execution there of Navid Afkari. It plays an appalling role in the destabilisation of the whole region. Does the Foreign Secretary not think that the UK should be more robustly condemning that regime and the pernicious role that it plays across the middle east and against its own people?

Dominic Raab: I agree with the hon. Member about the importance of raising human rights. The most recent thing we did, with my French and German counterparts as E3, was démarche Tehran on the human rights situation, including not only the case that he raises but the fate and arbitrary detention of the UK dual nationals held in Iran.

Alec Shelbrooke: What assessment has my right hon. Friend’s Department made of the potential shifting geopolitical centre of gravity on natural resources as the world moves from oil vehicles to electric vehicles?

Dominic Raab: My right hon. Friend makes a good point about the shifting economics and the shifting geopolitical centre of gravity. We have more co-operation with South America, as well as other regions, and that will be crucial if we are to shift the dial on climate change. Earlier this week I had a strategic dialogue with my Brazilian opposite number that was very much about not only the issues he raises but tackling deforestation and sustainable commodity use.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Eighty-two arrest warrants against sitting and former mayors; 200 members of the pro-Kurdish and pro-peace HDP party currently in detention; and now even MPs of the CHP, the Republican People’s party and modern founding party of Turkey, arrested—what is the Government’s view on this undermining of democracy in Turkey, and how has the Foreign Secretary expressed it to our Turkish allies?

Dominic Raab: Turkey is a close partner and a strategic ally in NATO and has Council of Europe obligations. We raise the whole suite of international obligations that apply as a matter both of customary international law, and of the conventions that Turkey itself has signed up to.

Philip Dunne: What diplomatic efforts has my right hon. Friend engaged in personally to work with China to ensure success in next year’s CBD15 and COP26 conferences on global biodiversity and climate?

Dominic Raab: That is a good example for all the other challenges we have; it is an area where we must work with China if we are going to shift the dial on climate change. China is the largest emitter, but also the largest investor in renewables. My right hon. Friend will have seen the welcome recent commitment by China to be carbon neutral by 2060. In that and other areas—including, for example, the recent UN General Assembly leaders’ pledge for nature on biodiversity, co-led by the  UK—we want to work with China. We will not persuade others to step up to the plate unless we can shift the dial with China.

Gill Furniss: Last month, the remote village of Washah in northern Yemen was hit by an airstrike carried out by the Saudi-led coalition, killing three women and six children. This is yet another breach of international human rights laws in that area. When  will the Government step up to their international responsibilities and properly hold Saudi Arabia to account for its actions in Yemen, done in the name of the UK-supported coalition?

James Cleverly: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an important strategic partner, and we recognise its right to defend itself against attack from parties within Yemen. The UK has a stringent arms control regime, and it is used whenever we work with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in terms of arms trade with them.

Simon Jupp: I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary reaffirm the important role of the BBC World Service for UK soft power and influence for good when he appeared in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee recently. What consideration has the Department given to guaranteeing direct funding for the World Service, as the BBC looks at new funding models?

Dominic Raab: My hon. Friend brings the passion for journalism that he had outside this House to the core of this issue. He is right to say that we value the role of the BBC World Service in projecting UK soft power around the world, and I will look very carefully at future funding in the context of the spending review.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Carla Lockhart. Not here.

David Davis: Saudi Arabia has been an ally of ours against terrorism for some time. Foremost among Saudis, the erstwhile crown prince Muhammad bin Nayef was a great friend of this country. He has now disappeared from public life, with great concerns over his safety. Will the Foreign Secretary make plain the importance of Prince bin Nayef’s safety to the United Kingdom Government?

Dominic Raab: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work that he has done in this area. We will of course look very carefully at the case he raises, and I understand the point that he makes.

Rushanara Ali: Canada and the Netherlands have formally joined the International Court of Justice case, led by Gambia, on the genocide against the Rohingya people by the Myanmar Government. Can the Foreign Secretary explain why the UK Government, despite being a penholder on the UN Security Council, for instance, in relation to Burma, have not done so, and when he plans to change that? Will he meet me and my co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the rights of the Rohingya to discuss this matter further?

Dominic Raab: We have a Commonwealth Foreign Ministers’ meeting coming up, where we will be looking at the further amount of support we are providing to ease the humanitarian plight of the Rohingya. We have looked at the ICJ proceedings and will continue to keep those under close review.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.

Speaker’s Statement

Lindsay Hoyle: I have a short statement to make about Select Committees. On Tuesday 24 March the House passed an order allowing for virtual participation in Select Committee meetings and giving Chairs associated powers to make reports. I was given the power under the order to extend it if necessary. On Wednesday 22 July I announced an extension until Friday 30 October. I can notify the House today that I am now further extending the order until Friday 22 January.

Public Health Restrictions: Government Economic Support

Anneliese Dodds: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic support available to individuals and businesses in areas of the country subject to additional public health restrictions.

Steve Barclay: Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor set out further measures to support local authorities through the crisis. On Friday, the Chancellor set out how we will support jobs in every part of the UK through an extension of the job support scheme, and these announcements build on the Chancellor’s September statement on the winter economic plan.
Throughout the pandemic the economic policy focus has been clear—to save jobs. Last month, we set out our plans to help viable businesses that can open through the job support scheme. However, businesses that are required to close due to coronavirus restrictions will also need our help. On Friday, the Chancellor announced the expansion of the job support scheme. Where coronavirus restrictions legally require business premises to close, we will pay up to two thirds of an employee’s salary, up to £2,100 a month, if they cannot work for a week or more. The scheme is nationwide and will run for six months.
In addition, businesses in England required to close will be eligible for a non-repayable cash grant of up to £3,000 a month. This can be used for any business costs. On Friday the Chancellor and I agreed with the First Minister of Wales, the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland and the Finance Minister of Scotland on this additional package of support. We have now also guaranteed an extra £1.3 billion of funding to the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Administrations if they decide to do something similar, bringing total guaranteed Barnett funding for this year to £14 billion.
In addition, as announced yesterday, we are providing local authorities in England with around £1 billion to protect vital services, and up to £500 million for local authorities at high or very high risk.
These measures build on the Government’s economic package, one of the most generous in the world, and underline our unwavering commitment to the people of this country.

Anneliese Dodds: Just over a month ago the Conservatives passed a motion in the House stating that
“any deviation from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”
The first deviation came two weeks later when the Chancellor announced his sink-or-swim job support scheme, design faults in which are already leading to substantial and unnecessary job losses. The second deviation came as a belated response to the imposition of localised restrictions announced on television last Friday, with further measures announced yesterday—yet Leicester, for example, has been under localised restrictions for over 100 days. The Chancellor told us to learn our new limits as we go. His handling of the economic crisis is testing patience to its limits, especially the patience of those whose jobs are threatened.
The Government must answer many critical questions, but here are just three: first, why will local areas be provided with support for test, trace and isolate only once they are already in tier 3? This is indefensible. Secondly, there is £1.3 billion-worth of unspent local grants. Why will not the Government allow this money to be used to support local businesses in affected areas? Thirdly, why are workers in closed businesses expected to face poverty as a result of the businesses they work for doing the right thing?

Steve Barclay: It is slightly odd that Opposition Front Benchers talk about deviation when their position has deviated as much as it has, not least on the curfew, which they said they would support yet refused to.
On the hon. Lady’s points of substance, the package of support announced by the Chancellor and Prime Minister did support local authorities with an additional £1 billion, as I said in my opening remarks, plus a further £500 million to address trace and trace locally, reflecting the fact that the Government are listening to local leaders and bringing forward responses. We saw that with the additional funding allocated to Merseyside and to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—again reflecting our listening in conversations with the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The hon. Lady makes a fair point about underspends that has been made by a number of colleagues. She is right to point to the sheer extent of support that we have offered, including the grants of £10,000 and £25,000. To deliver them at pace, they were allocated on the estimations that we had. As a result, the actual spend that has been required has led to some local authorities having very big underspends and others not. If we were to say that the authorities where the estimates were incorrect should benefit disproportionately, we would be accused of treating some unfairly compared with others. We met the need that was addressed at that time through the awards.
It is right from a fiscal point of view that the underspends are returned because they are surplus to the requirement on which they were allocated. In last week’s urgent question issues were raised by Merseyside Members, and ministerial colleagues engaged, listened and the funding for Merseyside more than doubled per head.
It is a slightly odd line of attack for the Opposition to say that we should not bring back underspends where they met their need but the estimations were inaccurate, yet not use the money to respond to the legitimate needs of areas such as Merseyside and elsewhere that are being moved into tier 3.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I help the Minister? He is meant to be speaking through the Chair and not to the other end of the Chamber, and I hope that we can work together on this. Has he finished the answer to that question?

Steve Barclay: indicated assent.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done a great deal to support the economy, but there has to be a careful balance struck between protecting against the virus and avoiding further economic destruction. With  that in mind, what scientific evidence has the Treasury received that closing pubs at 10 pm gets that balance right?

Steve Barclay: We have to balance the evidence that the Government receive from a range of quarters. My right hon. Friend will recall that when the initial advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies was put forward, the Government came forward with a range of measures, such as the rule of six and the curfew. Indeed, if we look at the projections that were made at that time, we see that we could potentially have had 49,000 or so daily cases by 14 October when in actual fact the figure on that date was 12,872. That indicates the fact that the package of measures put in place by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have had an influence. However, listening to the SAGE advice, it is recognised that we need to go further and that is why the tiered approach has been set out.

Drew Hendry: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is proving exactly what Tory values are with this dogged determination to return to 1980s levels of unemployment. Switching away from the rhetoric of whatever it takes to hard choices exposes the fact that protecting jobs was an empty promise even before the end of furlough. He is risking more than 60,000 jobs in Scotland alone. The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear. It says:
“Despite the claim by Chancellor Rishi Sunak last week that he would ‘always balance the books’, this will not happen, and he would be most unwise to try.”
Mass unemployment is a terrible policy, so will the Minister urge his boss to change course even at this late stage and extend furlough to save jobs, to use returned moneys to help those who have been excluded and to listen to the SNP demands for an £80 billion stimulus package? Will he listen to the nearly 70% of the Scottish public who want financial powers devolved to Scotland, or are the Government going just simply to plough ahead ignoring Scotland’s needs and further proving that Scotland needs the powers of independence?

Steve Barclay: It is a slightly odd premise to say that the Conservative Government are not supporting the response when we have spent more than £200 billion as part of that response, when we are currently supporting nearly half a million jobs in Scotland, when 8.9 million people across the United Kingdom have benefited from the furlough scheme and more than half of those are back in their jobs, and when more than 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from our loan scheme. However, the hon. Gentleman is right in one aspect of his question. This Government are true to Conservative values and those are the values of the Union. It is through the shared broad shoulders that we are able to put in place the fiscal package of support that has enabled us to protect as many jobs in Scotland and around the UK as we have.

Gerald Jones: Surely the Minister will recognise that the Welsh Government face the same task as UK Ministers in needing to manage their budget in the face of the unprecedented pressures brought about by the pandemic. That task is made harder by the lack of transparency  from the UK Treasury. We know that the IFS has called on the UK Treasury to follow Wales’ example in publishing budget adjustments in full so that we know what announcements apply to Wales and how much budget is available. Will the Minister today agree to publish the information around the decisions so that we have transparency and Welsh Ministers can make decisions with confidence?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman talks about transparency for the Welsh Government. The Chancellor had a call last Friday, which I joined, with the First Minister of Wales as part of our transparency with the Welsh Government, so it is slightly odd to say that we are not being transparent. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are issues that need to be managed by the devolved Administrations and the concern he sets out is exactly why we provided the upfront guarantee on Barnett consequentials. We recognise that, in order that the Welsh Government can make decisions in advance of knowing what the Barnett consequentials are, it is important to give a forward-looking guarantee on that. That is why we gave the additional guarantee of £1.3 billion to the devolved Administrations, including the Welsh Government, as a response to the point that he raises.

Mike Wood: A tenth of pubs have not reopened since lockdown in March while two thirds were already trading at a loss, even before restricted opening times, mandatory table service and the new restrictions announced yesterday. Will my right hon. Friend look at the support that is available for pubs that are not yet compelled to close, but are legally prevented from operating economically, and in particular state aid limits that threaten to prevent 10,000 pubs from receiving the support they need? Without that support, many thousands of pubs will close their doors and never reopen.

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is a champion of the pub sector and he speaks to the fact that it faces many challenges, but that is why we have been trying to strike a balance. Some would say the curfew is insufficient, but part of it is about recognising the very real pressures on the pub sector that he speaks to. Other colleagues in the House sometimes talk of the Sweden model but, as he will know, in Sweden the 2-metre rule is often more difficult for the hospitality sector and the pubs to adjust to. Ultimately, that is why the Chancellor set out the wider package of support, recognising the concerns he speaks of with the tax deferrals, the loans, the business rate support and the measures on VAT, which are targeted at the sector because of the very real concerns he correctly articulates.

Stephen Kinnock: My Aberavon constituents are increasingly concerned about the practice of firing then re-hiring, whereby unscrupulous employers are using the pandemic as a cover to sack their employees and then re-hire them on inferior terms and conditions. What steps are the Government taking to tackle this completely unacceptable practice and to exclude firms that engage in these behaviours from Government  support schemes?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate concern that is shared across the House. It is wrong for companies to act in that way. One purpose of the furlough is to retain that link between the labour market, the person and their job. The furlough bonus is designed to strengthen that link, so people are brought back. He takes a constructive approach to these issues and I am happy to work with him in the weeks and months ahead, because this is a practice that all of us in the House would condemn. The schemes we have designed try to retain the link with the worker to prevent that sort of practice.

Matt Vickers: Stockton South has some of the best bars, pubs, restaurants and breweries in the country, and many play an important role at the heart of the community. So far, they have benefited from a fantastic package of support, but the tier 2 restrictions pose a huge challenge. What will the Government do to protect jobs and ensure that we do not hospitalise our hospitality sector?

Steve Barclay: It is about getting the right balance because, ultimately, the most damaging thing for those pubs in tier 2 would be a further escalation of the virus and a situation in which they faced further restrictions. We have sought to ensure, first, that they can continue trading through tier 2, while having alongside the package of support for jobs, which the Chancellor set out in our winter plan to back those jobs with Government support, as well as a cash flow package. Cash flow will remain a key challenge as we go through the winter crisis, which is why we have such an extensive package supporting cash flow.

Christine Jardine: I am sure the Minister was as concerned as me to hear reports that those people with businesses who take out bounce back loans to help them to follow the Government rules and survive this economic crisis—not just in their interest, but in all our interests—could face action up to and including repossession of their home if they struggle to repay those loans. Will he reassure not just the House, but people across the country, including in my constituency of Edinburgh West, that this Government will not allow that misery to be heaped on the misery already being suffered?

Steve Barclay: The very favourable terms of the bounce back loans were designed to deliver with speed. This was an initial challenge of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme; we received feedback from debate in the House and elsewhere that the speed was not there, so that was part of the design for the bounce back loans. Another part of the design was the Government guarantee to get that credit to people. We have extended access to that scheme and the possible repayment period, so that issue should not be crystallising at this point. Clearly we need to look at the risk with regard to repayments. As I said to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), I am happy to work with colleagues around the House, but the hon. Lady will be well aware of the package of measures that we have put in place to protect people vis-à-vis their mortgage and to protect renters from eviction.

Bob Seely: Is there any specific evidence that swimming pools and gyms are centres for covid transmission? Has any research been done into rising obesity and unfitness levels, and has any research been done into rising unemployment caused by the closure of gyms and pools that is now happening in parts of the UK?

Steve Barclay: In some ways, that is slightly more of a Health question than a Treasury question, but I recognise that there is read-across from those businesses into the economy. In short, the opinion of the chief medical officer and the chief scientific officer is that those businesses do carry significantly more risk, which is why they have been harder hit in the guidance that has been issued. The package of support that the Chancellor set out recognises that businesses that are closed need additional support, which is why the measures announced by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor yesterday spoke exactly to the issue of businesses that have been closed due to the guidelines.

Sammy Wilson: The wisdom and necessity of some of the restrictions introduced yesterday have been questioned by leaders of cities in the north of England, by businesses and by the workers who are going to be affected, so it is right that the Government should introduce a package of support for businesses that are forced to close. However, there are many businesses that have not been instructed to close, but which will be forced to because of the restrictions placed on them. For example, the hospitality industry faces curfews, restrictions on table numbers and on who can sit at tables, and so on. How does this package of support assure those businesses that they are not going to be killed off by the restrictions that have been placed on them? They have been put in the firing line, yet seem to have been left without any level of support at all, given the conditions attached to this economic package.

Steve Barclay: The right hon. Gentleman speaks to an important issue, which was at the heart of the job support scheme’s design: recognising businesses that are not in closure, but which have difficulty bringing people back full time. The scheme provides support. The employer pays the first third, and the remaining amount is split three ways, with the Government supporting. Additionally, there is the wider package of measures, including support to local authorities to get better compliance, which is in the interests of businesses. The £1 billion to local authorities, the £500 million for local test and trace services, the business loans and the tax deferrals are all targeted at the sector that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about: businesses that can still trade and are not closed, but which do face further pressure. The winter plan sets out that support.

Graham Brady: Care homes across the country are struggling to survive, and the areas with greater restrictions are particularly dealing with unprecedented levels of vacancies. What are the Government doing to support those vacancies and prevent the forced closure of care homes, which would in turn lead to many thousands of vulnerable people being rehoused or moved out across the community?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is a strong interplay between the workforce challenges and the financial viability of the care home sector. One of the biggest risk factors is transmission as a result of staff, particularly agency staff, moving between care homes. He will know—and I know from my time as a Health Minister—that the financial pressures of that sector are not new pressures from this covid period; they are of long standing. The first tier of the £3.7 billion package of support that was initially allocated to local authorities was particularly directed at the adult social care sector. My hon. Friend will be aware that we are now on the second tranche of infection control funding to support these sectors. He speaks to a very real issue, which we are monitoring closely, and which is at the heart of how we address staff transfers between care homes and the infection risk that such transfers pose.

Bambos Charalambous: The Government have said that schools will be among the last to close under any covid restrictions or lockdowns. Headteachers in my constituency have told me that they are having to pay additional costs for cleaning to keep schools safe. When will the Government announce additional funding for schools, so that this money does not come out of schools’ budgets, risking deficit for them?

Steve Barclay: As the Minister responsible for Government spending on behalf of the Chancellor, I would want to look closely at why the school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is saying that that very significant uplift in funding for schools last year does not appear to be reaching the frontline. The education funding settlement in the 2019 spending round should more than cover the cleaning costs. I will happily look at that, but if he looks at the funding settlement allocated in SR19, I think he will accept that it was a very generous one.

Edward Leigh: It is not surprising that more and more Members are calling for more Government support, because the Government are forcing more and more businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, out of business. The Chief Secretary says that his priority is to help business. The best way  to help businesses is to let them get on and do business. We are going bankrupt as a nation—there will not be the money to pay for the NHS or pensions. What is the Treasury doing to row back against other parts of the Government and insist that we must allow British business to operate? He did not answer the question from the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—what is the scientific evidence for pubs closing at 10 o’clock? Is he leading the fight to help Britain to stay in business?

Steve Barclay: With respect, I did answer it. I pointed to the projection given by the chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser at that time, the SAGE guidance and the fact that the package of measures put in place by the Prime Minister has resulted in a lower infection risk. The CMO and others would recognise that this is a range of measures. My right hon. Friend says that the Government have gone too far and that there is no evidence for the curfew. The tenor of most of the questions one gets is that we have not moved far enough and should be taking more drastic actions. That speaks  to the fact that this is a balanced judgment. One needs to look at the range of measures we are taking, and that is what I would refer him to.

Stephen Doughty: My constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth and the Vale of Glamorgan are under a local lockdown and dealing with the economic pressures that that brings. Does the Chief Secretary agree that it is deeply disappointing that major local employers such as British Gas/Centrica are engaging in the type of “fire and rehire” tactics that we have seen others try to use, such as British Airways? What message does he have for the chief executive of British Gas/Centrica about those measures, which I believe are completely unacceptable in the current climate?

Steve Barclay: I do not think it is acceptable to have a “fire and rehire” culture. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) put it very well in his question, and I echo those sentiments. This is an area of common ground across the House. The package of measures we have put in place is to retain the link between a worker and their business, and that is very much the Government’s approach.

David Jones: My right hon. Friend may remember that I raised with him last week the issue of tourism businesses in north Wales, which have been severely impacted by the decision of the Welsh Government to impose movement restrictions. Many of those businesses now face the prospect of closure, but they are not being required to close by the Government, and there is little help being offered by the Welsh Government. The expansion of the job support scheme last week was welcome, but that only benefits businesses that have been required to close by the relevant Administration. What further support can Her Majesty’s Government offer to Welsh tourism businesses, which are so badly affected by the current state of affairs?

Steve Barclay: Among the range of measures that we have put in place as support, one speaks directly to my right hon. Friend’s issue, which is the rent support of up to £3,000 for businesses that are forced to close. The Welsh Government can then use Barnett consequential funding to support businesses and to design a scheme as they see fit, but it is for the Welsh Government to design those schemes, not the UK Government. That is what devolution entails. What we have done through the comprehensive package of measures that we have put in place is ensure that there is Barnett consequential funding to allow the Welsh Government to put that support in place.

Debbie Abrahams: Like infectious diseases of the past, covid is a disease of poverty. Various indicators, including cuts to local authority funding, show that regional inequalities have been exacerbated over the past decade. Contrary to the Minister’s earlier remarks about the generosity of the packages to local authorities, only 10% of costs associated with the pandemic have been reimbursed by the Government. What is the Minister’s assessment of the actual impact that the recent announcement of measures have had on the Government’s ambition to level up?

Steve Barclay: If the hon. Lady looks at international comparators, she will see that the Government’s package of support—more than £200 billion—is generous. I point her to the job support scheme, for example. A number of colleagues across the House question whether the 67% is sufficient, but the point is that it is dynamic in conjunction with the additional funding that has been put into welfare. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady lets me answer the question, she will hear that I am talking about the support for people in businesses that have closed, which is an issue that all colleagues across the House take very seriously. [Interruption.] Well, that applies to regional equality. Opposition Members may not like the answer, but the question was: how does the UK compare with international comparators. I am pointing to the fact that the package of measures put in place—the furlough at 80% for eight months—was much more generous than that of most other countries. The business support package, including business rents, tax deferrals, loans, such as the bounce back loans and help to grow loans—we can go through the full list—bears comparison. The question over the past 24 hours is whether the latest measures bear international comparison. The point I was making is that if one looks at the French, German, Italian and other schemes, the two thirds support for those businesses that are closed, coupled with a dynamic relationship with the support on universal credit does bear favourable comparison with those, which is why I stand by my comments that, internationally, the UK has a world-leading package.

Alec Shelbrooke: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), the tier 2 restrictions on social mixing are cutting the legs away from the hospitality industry. Equally, even in tier 3, restaurants will not necessarily be closed, but the fact remains that people are just not going to them. May I implore my right hon. Friend to extend the £3,000 grant to all hospitality venues in tiers 2 and 3 regardless of whether they are told to close? The industry is dying, because people are trying to do the right thing and not mix. Chief Secretary, the industries are open in name only. Please look at extending the available help before the industry is destroyed.

Steve Barclay: I hear the concerns of my right hon. Friend, but there is a balance that needs to be struck between the comprehensive nature and the fiscal cost of the range of packages that we have put in place and the measures that we have taken to control the virus. The balance that we have struck, in line with the advice that we have received, is about balancing how we control the virus with the wider implications not only for the economy, but for non-covid health issues as well. That is the balance that we are striking. Of course it is attractive for him to say that we should keep spending more  and more, but we have already committed more than £200 billion.

Kevan Jones: The Prime Minister has been clear that the Government’s response to the covid crisis will follow the science. Last night, on a conference call with Professor Stephen Powys, the medical director for England, the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and my hon. Friend the Member  for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) asked about the science behind the 10 pm curfew on pubs and restaurants. Professor Powys said that there was no specific advice and in his words it was a “policy decision”. Given that thousands of jobs and businesses are at risk in tier 2 areas such as the north-east, can the Minister tell us what the logic is behind this policy decision?

Steve Barclay: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, that same SAGE guidance also says that there are multiple anecdotal reports of outbreaks linked to bars, and the Public Health England case control study also identifies visits to entertainment venues as a risk factor. It comes back to the point about balance. Some in the House say that there is a risk of infection in these hospitality venues and we should close them entirely; others say that we should have no restrictions at all. We have taken our decision on the basis that compliance tends to decrease later in the evening and that there are links to outbreaks in these venues. That is the balance that we have been striking.

Laura Farris: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been a high degree of public opprobrium for employers who have taken advantage of the furlough scheme and then engaged in poor employment practice. Returning to “fire and rehire”, will he consider an immediate guillotine on any employer who sacked 50% or more of their staff and then rehired some or all on reduced pay, so as to disqualify those employers from any further form of direct Government support, including the furlough retention bonus?

Steve Barclay: It is very many years since I gave legal advice as a community lawyer, but one of the things I remember is that in employment law there is often a lot of complexity around what can and cannot be done. The wider point that has been raised in the House, and which my hon. Friend’s question points to, is that there is a consensus that it is not acceptable for businesses to be doing that. Going back to the very first statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave as we started on the response to covid, he said that how people conduct themselves throughout this pandemic will be remembered. With regard those businesses that do act in this way, we will obviously need to look at that in due course.

Gavin Newlands: Given the Chief Secretary’s answers on “fire and rehire”, which I am very much heartened to hear, I hope that he will back my Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill. With no aviation support package as promised, the job support scheme riddled with holes and the abolition of airside tax-free shopping, further debt or job losses are the only options for firms. It is akin to 1980’s policies of “sink or swim”. Last week’s statement was completely silent on the sector. Is it now Treasury policy to write off aviation, making tens of thousands of jobs unviable?

Steve Barclay: The reality is that the aerospace and aviation sectors have received over £8.5 billion through the covid corporate financing facility. Grants for research and development, loans and export guarantees are also expected over the next 18 months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport recently launched  the Global Travel Taskforce, which underscores the Government’s commitment to this sector. The hon. Gentleman talks about support. The aviation sector has benefited from our comprehensive package of measures, whether it is the furlough or tax deferral schemes, or all the other measures that we have put in place. That is all part of the wider support that we have given to UK business as a result of the broad shoulders we have as a United Kingdom.

Julian Sturdy: UKHospitality reports trade down by 40% to 60% due to the ban on the indoor mixing of households. Can I therefore add my name to that of other colleagues who have called for my right hon. Friend to commit to urgently reviewing what targeted support could be provided for enterprises stuck in tier 2, who, as it stands, receive very little specific help but will still suffer huge losses of trade from additional restrictions that come with tier 2, and ultimately will really struggle to stay open?

Steve Barclay: The most important thing for businesses in tier 2 is that we are able to control the virus. That is why the Government are investing as heavily as we are in track and trace—over £12 billion so far—and enabling businesses in tier 2 to retain their staff, which, again, is what the winter plan and the job support package is doing. The Government have made targeted interventions in support of businesses in tier 2, but we need to balance that against the wider fiscal position that we face.

Alex Davies-Jones: The Minister will surely know by now that my local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf has had local restrictions imposed on it for some weeks now. The Chancellor, when he can be bothered to show up, talks a good game, but it is clear that this Government do not care about people in communities across Wales. It was only earlier this year that Pontypridd was decimated by the worst flooding for many decades, and the UK Government simply sat on their hands and watched as homes and businesses were devastated. The Minister now has an opportunity to redeem himself and this Government. We need action now on the money that was promised, so what are his plans to finally assist the 3 million people who have been excluded from the Government support packages thus far?

Steve Barclay: On the issue of the excluded campaign, we have covered this pretty much every time we have come to the House, for the reasons we have set out. On support for Wales, the point the hon. Lady makes is at odds with the reality; in the urgent question last week, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised the issue of some specific flood damage support, and between then and now we have addressed it, and I have written to him indicating the support available. The hon. Lady makes a point about the wider support without any mention of the guarantee on Barnett consequentials that has been given. It is unprecedented for the Government to give a guarantee up front on Barnett consequentials, yet she does not even mention it in her question.

Craig Whittaker: Track and Trace nationally gets a bad press, wrongly in my view, but when we add a local tier, with local people employed,  the success rate on contacts climbs. Calderdale’s local tier takes the success rate on contacts to almost 90%. How much extra support is being given to these local tiers, which are another tool in the armoury to help protect business and local residents?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the importance of benefiting from the local knowledge on track and trace, which is why the Prime Minister and the Chancellor announced an additional £500 million to address exactly the point my hon. Friend highlights about the benefit of working closely with local directors of public health. That is exactly what we are doing, and the funding announced by the Prime Minister and Chancellor yesterday will enable that work to accelerate.

Alex Sobel: Yesterday, I held a roundtable with hospitality businesses facing tier 2 restrictions, at which a restaurant owner said that his business would just bleed out with the economic support that was available. They asked whether we could look at increasing the intervention rate for the job support scheme in November in order to be more generous, because otherwise they will have to let go of their staff and there is the potential for large-scale closures of hospitality businesses. What additional measures can the Government bring forward for hospitality businesses that are under tier 2 restrictions?

Steve Barclay: Again, I appreciate the concerns the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of businesses in his constituency, but, as I said to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) a moment ago, by international standards the package of support the Chancellor has put in place stands fair comparison. That interaction between the support for those jobs and businesses that are able to be open, and the additional £7 billion of welfare support through universal credit, provides dynamic support for the workers to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Stephen Crabb: My right hon. Friend spoke a few moments ago about the important role being played by universal credit at this time, so may I press him again on the Treasury’s intentions on the temporary uplift in universal credit? It is one thing for a Government to reduce a planned rate of increase of a benefit or even to freeze a benefit, but it is another thing altogether to give extra money to some of the poorest people in the country and then take that away. That is precisely what we are on course to do next April unless we change course, so will the Minister address that issue?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend raised exactly the same issue at our urgent question last week, and I know he has a huge understanding of it from his time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. He knows full well that the announcement made was a temporary one to deal with the immediate consequences of the covid pandemic, and with all these decisions we need to balance the competing pressures at a particular time with the wider fiscal position.

Cat Smith: Fish and seafood wholesalers have been hit hard by a decline in demand from the hospitality sector. I have been contacted by My Fish Company, which is based in Fleetwood and which is concerned that the Government’s domestic seafood supply scheme appears to favour the larger national companies because of the short period of time in which to make an application and the level of resources that would require. So what reassurances can the Chief Secretary give to my constituents and companies based in Fleetwood, many of which are small and medium-sized enterprises, that the Government scheme is going to deliver for them?

Steve Barclay: When we agreed that scheme, it was very much with SMEs in mind. I would be quite keen to look at the delivery of that and to speak to colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As the hon. Member knows, as part of this wider package of support, and after listening to businesses such as the ones to which she refers, we put in place a £10 million support package in England for the fishing sector. That was about recognising that the restaurant trade in particular as a market had been hit and also that exports had been hit. We recognised that there was a pressure in the fishing sector and we provided support for it. I am grateful to her for drawing the House’s attention to the support that the Government have given to the fishing sector. If there is a particular constituency issue, I will ask DEFRA colleagues to look at it.

Brendan Clarke-Smith: In Bassetlaw and north Nottinghamshire, we are now subject to tier 2 restrictions in line with Nottingham and the rest of the county, despite having significantly lower rates. Despite the tremendous support that has been offered so far, some in the hospitality sector are really struggling, as we have heard from colleagues in the Chamber, so will the Minister please tell us what can be done for those in tier 2 to help them to get through this incredibly difficult time? Will he also try to keep this under review?

Steve Barclay: In part, it is our winter plan to support those businesses in terms of the staff they are able to bring back. There is no gap between the end of the furlough scheme, which has run for eight months—by international standards, an extremely generous measure—and the start of the job support scheme. On top of that, there are the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on the extension of loans to help with cash flow, and on top of that there are the measures that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor announced yesterday—the extra £1 billion, the extra £500 million to local authorities, to help those businesses to control those things. That is ultimately why, collectively, we all have a responsibility to keep the virus down in order that those businesses in tier 2 are able to trade and come down into tier 1 as soon as possible.

Apsana Begum: Local lockdowns will undoubtedly affect small businesses that have already struggled due to the initial lockdown earlier this year. In my constituency, traders at Chrisp Street market and Watney market were impacted by the lack of Government support earlier in the year. Some of those traders operate from rented lock-ups, where their  goods are stored, and business rates for those properties are paid for by the leaseholder, meaning that market traders did not benefit from business rates relief and therefore suffered financial hardship. May I ask the Chief Secretary to the Treasury what further financial support can be provided for those local businesses that are not covered by business rates relief in the event of a local lockdown?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that when the Government put in place the £10,000 and £25,000 grants of support linked to premises, market traders fell outside of that scheme because it was based on property. The specific issue of market traders was raised with us, and in response we put in place a further support scheme giving discretionary grants to local authorities in order that they could tailor that additional funding to local circumstances. I think she could raise this issue with her local council and ask why it has not used the discretionary grants to support those traders to whom she refers.

Caroline Nokes: I hugely welcome the expanded jobs support scheme, which is so important, but what it does not do is help those businesses that supply the events industry—for example, the sound engineers and lighting engineers and, in my constituency, Beat the Street, which provides tour buses to the music industry. It has not been forced to shut down, but it has seen its trade wiped out. I urge my right hon. Friend to think of ways in which he can help companies such as that, which employ in excess of 150 people and can see no end in sight to their current financial woes.

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend rightly highlights an industry and a sector that have been particularly hit. Again, we have tried, through the package of measures such as the extension of the self-employed income support scheme, to help some of those within that sector. I think the business to which she is referring is more a pay-as-you-earn one, but it is often freelancers who work in, say, the lighting sector and the events sector, and they have been particularly impacted. That is why the self-employed scheme was introduced. To some extent, and given the over £200 million of support, the Chancellor has been very candid, as have I, about the fact that we were not in a position as a Government to save every single job. We are working with colleagues—I am always happy to work with my right hon. Friend—to look at what measures we can take, but it has to be balanced against the wider fiscal position.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Chancellor for all the support they have given to jobs and businesses over this period. However, as we move to the next stage of our battle, to echo other colleagues, will my right hon. Friend at least agree to keep an open mind about further support for hospitality businesses in tier 2, which are not required to close, but are going to struggle with reduced capacity? I am sure none of us wants to see hollowed-out communities as pubs permanently call last orders.

Steve Barclay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question; I think the Chancellor has demonstrated throughout the health pandemic that he has both kept  an open mind and consulted widely, with the TUC, business leaders and many others. That is why for hospitality specifically we had a range of measures in the summer, with eat out to help out, the targeted VAT support and cash support measures, and the job support for staff coming back, where the Government helped with some of those labour costs. Of course the Chancellor will keep these things under review, but the key issue for all of us is to get the virus down, and that is the best way of helping our hospitality sector.

Angela Eagle: Yesterday, my constituency of Wallasey, as part of the Liverpool city region, was mandated by the Government to go into tier 3 restrictions. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the £40 million of unallocated support that his Government gave to the city region at the start of the pandemic could now be used, given that we are in tier 3, to support local businesses that are in the worst form of lockdown?

Steve Barclay: We did address this issue; I recognise that many hon. Members in the House have raised it on behalf of those councils where the initial estimate was at odds with the actual number of grants issued, but for the same reasons I gave earlier I do not think that would be equitable. Where there are pressures with tier 3, as with the conversations that took place for example between the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and leaders in Merseyside, among others, over the weekend, it is right that the needs are addressed pertaining to tier 3, not that the underspend on funding that was allocated in a previous period is then used in that way. If the Government were to agree that, many hon. Members across the House would feel that that was unfair.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my right hon. Friend for the package of support that was put in place yesterday, but may I raise again with him companies in the supply chain for the hospitality industry and the events and exhibition industry? He mentioned a moment ago the discretionary criterion available, but unfortunately local councils are not often using that. I ask him to look at the eligibility criteria for grants and support, which were raised yesterday. Many in the events and hospitality industry want to reopen, so will he meet me so we can arrange how it can be done safely?

Steve Barclay: First of all , I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend and I welcome the constructive approach that he always takes on these issues. In terms of eligibility, part of the design of the discretionary grant was to give discretion to local authorities to apply it in different ways, and it would be slightly at odds with that for the Government to say that there must be a particular way of applying it. However, he speaks to a sector that I know has been particularly hard hit by covid; we recognise that, and it is a factor that has shaped a number of the approaches we have brought forward, particularly on things such as cash flow. I am very happy to speak with him.

Barry Sheerman: May I be helpful to the Chief Secretary, as I have been sometimes in the past? I am the Member of Parliament for Huddersfield in west Yorkshire; we are tier 2 and, like so many parts of the country, we will be facing vast  problems of youth unemployment. May I be very helpful by asking him to look at Margaret Thatcher’s history? She introduced a windfall profit tax on the banks. Why cannot he introduce a windfall profit tax year on Amazon, the gambling sector—you name it; we know who has done well in this crisis—and then use that money to fund a wonderful green revolution, with new green businesses, new green training and new green jobs for young people?

Steve Barclay: I have always found the hon. Gentleman constructive, and I welcome the fact that he is looking at the fiscal position we face as a country and how we may address that. It would be remiss of me, given my responsibilities, to stray into the terrain of the next Budget and tax-raising measures; I will leave that for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the very serious issue of youth unemployment. I think it is an issue that concerns us all in this House. The sectors that are most hit have concentrations of young people, particularly in the hospitality sector. It is really at the heart of the winter plan that my right hon. Friend brought forward in doubling the number of work coaches, in tripling the number of traineeships and with the £2,000 for apprenticeships. We have been looking at and learning from not just the Thatcher era, but actually from the previous Labour Government with some of the packages we discussed with the TUC and others. One of the great challenges we face is how we address not just the number of people who are unemployed, but the length of time they are unemployed. That is an absolutely key issue, and that is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is so focused on doubling the number of work coaches. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight that issue.

Jo Gideon: Stoke-on-Trent is currently in medium risk tier 1, but we all know that any area can see an increase in infection rates. With the introduction of the tier system, many workers in the highest tier will once again be unable to go to work and make a living for themselves and their families. Will my right hon. Friend please reassure me that those who are unable to attend their place of work will continue to be supported by this Government, particularly those from low-income households with rents to pay?

Steve Barclay: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has sought to do that throughout this crisis. In the interests of brevity—as requested from the Chair—I would point to the example we had with the shielding programme. I think it was a very proud record, which indicates that intent.

John Spellar: It is a shame the Chancellor is not here today because the Treasury needs to get a better answer to the question from the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) and others: what is the evidence, not anecdotes, to back up the case for the curfew and lockdown for the vast hospitality sector, which is facing closures, cashflow crises and job losses across pubs and clubs, restaurants and cafés, betting shops, bingo halls, casinos, theatres and cinemas, gyms and wedding venues? Treasury Ministers either have to  secure a change in direction of Government lockdown policy or they have to up the level of support. Which is it going to be?

Steve Barclay: The fact that, in the course of this urgent question, we have been criticised both for not locking down enough and for locking down too much indicates that these are balanced decisions. The right hon. Member is right to point to the SAGE advice, which I know got a lot of media commentary this morning. In an earlier reply, I addressed the fact that there are concerns about outbreaks linked to bars and whether compliance is worse later at night, but that is part of the package of measures. That is why, in September, we brought in the additional measures we did. It is why, yesterday, the Prime Minister went further with a tiered approach, but it is a balanced approach.

Mark Harper: In answer to an earlier question, the Chief Secretary talked about the interaction of the job support scheme and universal credit. Could he perhaps flesh out a specific example? I think I am right in saying that people getting support from both of those schemes can get up to about 90% of their income, which is obviously of huge benefit. I would reinforce the point of the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). I accept that the UC extra money was temporary during the pandemic, but the Government’s own strategy document suggests that the pandemic will not be over by next April. I do not expect an answer today—[Laughter]—but it is something for the Treasury to think about.

Steve Barclay: On the wider point, my right hon Friend, as a former Government Chief Whip, knows full well that in government one balances these Budget submissions alongside the wider fiscal position that the Government face. On his first point, he is absolutely right. If we combine the 67% of support through the job support scheme with the dynamic element of universal credit, that takes us much more towards 88%. I can give specific examples, but I have been asked to be briefer—by you, Mr Speaker—in my replies. The point is that my right hon. Friend is absolutely right on that, and I am very happy to share some examples with him.

Lindsay Hoyle: Especially when the Member does not want an answer, Minister! [Laughter.]

Dan Jarvis: Without additional financial support, the restrictions to which South Yorkshire will be subject will deal a hammer blow to businesses and high streets across our region. Can I ask the Chief Secretary what assessment the Treasury has done on the economic effect of the tier 2 measures, and whether he is personally satisfied that the current support available will be enough to save jobs and businesses here in South Yorkshire?

Steve Barclay: I know through his local responsibilities that the hon. Member is in conversation with my ministerial colleagues in the wider discussions on our response. The reality is, as I said earlier, that one cannot be satisfied that every job in the area will be protected. It is about having a balance of measures that enables those businesses to be open that can be and takes action on the virus to  suppress the increase. The previous question from one of his own parliamentary colleagues was to say that we should not be going as far as we are. He is saying, as I understand it, that we should be going further, but with wider support. That points to the fact that even within our own parties we have these debates.
It is about getting the balance. We have brought forward what is by international standards a very supportive package that combines the additional billion pounds to local authorities and the extra £500 million to localise track and trace, which the hon. Member and other local leaders have called for. We have listened to those representations, and that is reflected. I hope he welcomes that, and I look forward to working with him constructively in the days and weeks ahead.

Neil O'Brien: Oadby and Wigston in my constituency was the first place in the country to receive extra support because of our local lockdown. I pay tribute to Treasury officials and Ministers for putting it in place so quickly, but what is being done through the kickstart scheme and other schemes to create new jobs and to fight unemployment?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend raises a good point, and it speaks to the point raised on youth unemployment a moment ago. We have invested £2 billion in the kickstart scheme. We are tripling traineeships. We have the £2,000 for firms taking on apprenticeships. That is something that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is particularly focused on, as well as the doubling of work coaches. Linked to that is our investment in green jobs through net zero and the package that was announced by the Chancellor, including the decarbonisation of public buildings and homes and the creation of green jobs. We are bringing forward the £5 billion infrastructure package that the Prime Minister announced the week before the summer economic update. We then need to link those jobs to skills through schemes such as the kickstart, so that for those who are not able to retain their jobs, we are able to get them into the new jobs of the future.

Margaret Greenwood: It is important that the Government understand the reality of people’s lives as new restrictions are introduced. Figures from the Low Pay Commission show that around 1,800 people in Wirral West are paid at or around the minimum wage. Many people on low pay work in bars and restaurants, and I am very concerned about the impact that the new restrictions will have on their ability to pay their bills. What action will the Government take to ensure that working people in Wirral West do not face poverty as a result of these new measures?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady is right to highlight that worry that many people have, particularly with the additional announcements. That is why we have taken the action we have, with the additional £7 billion into welfare to enable universal credit to top-up where there is an impact on people’s wages. That combination of the job support scheme and universal credit speaks exactly to the concerns she raises.

Steve Double: The Government have rightly put in several billion pounds directly to support the rail industry, but that is in sharp  contrast to the aviation sector, where very little direct specific support has been provided. In many parts of the country, our domestic air routes and our regional airports are just as much vital transport infrastructure as the railway is, so will my right hon. Friend please look again at what support can be given to the aviation sector, particularly our regional airports?

Steve Barclay: I know that my hon. Friend is a strong champion of the aviation sector, not least because he and I have discussed the issue. I know he has championed it within Government. It is not the case that the aviation sector has not had support. I pointed earlier to the £8.5 billion through the corporate financing facility. In terms of Government focus on the sector, he is absolutely right that it is an important sector for the UK to focus on. We have the largest aviation network in Europe, the third largest in the world. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important sector, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has launched a global travel taskforce, and is working with the travel industry as part of that.

Joanna Cherry: Local lockdowns affect a far wider range of businesses than just those that are forced to close. Food and drink suppliers such as Edinburgh Beer Factory in my constituency will be severely affected. Small and medium enterprises such as that are the backbone of the Scottish economy, so why has the Chancellor’s furlough replacement scheme so drastically slashed support for innovative and thriving businesses such as the Edinburgh Beer Factory?

Steve Barclay: It has not. It has provided a universal offer to all firms that are able to be open, for exactly the reason at the heart of her question. She is quite right that the displacement impact goes far beyond areas in tier 3 or tier 2. Businesses supplying them are affected. We had a question earlier about support for the fishing industry. One of the key challenges with the fishing industry was exactly the point to which she refers—they were supplying other businesses that had been affected, and that is why we put £10 million of support into that sector.
We have taken a universal approach. It is at odds, though, with the questions we often get in the House, which are very much about whether we can support this sector or that sector. We have taken a universal approach because we recognise that one cannot necessarily draw a geographical line around the suppliers of businesses that are impacted.

Julian Knight: On Sunday evening, Mayor Andy Street was told that Solihull would be in tier 1. The day afterwards we appeared in tier 2. Does the Minister recognise the crushing blow that that gives to the hospitality industry and that tier 2 is economically the worst of all possible worlds?

Steve Barclay: I think we all agree in this House that we want to do all we can to get the virus down and get businesses open. We do not want businesses to be in tier 2 or indeed tier 3. We want to support them so that they are able to function as much as possible.
The timing of moving between different tiers is shaped by a range of factors—the number of positive tests, the amount of testing that is being done, the views of the  local director of public health and the views of local leaders such as Andy Street. We all want to ensure that as many businesses as possible remain in tier 1.

Sharon Hodgson: Data out today shows that over 1,700 more people in my constituency were unemployed in August 2020 than in August 2019, and that is before the existing furlough scheme ends. With unemployment in the north- east already rocketing to 6.6%, the highest of any UK region, why is the Chancellor allowing damage not seen since Thatcher in the 1980s to befall my region?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady is usually one of the most constructive Members. To suggest that a pandemic that all countries are grappling with is down to some sort of ideological approach by the Government is not accurate. The Government have put in place a furlough scheme for eight months that stands very good comparison with those of other countries. We have more than £200 billion of measures to support businesses, including in her constituency, and that is not only to help retain people in jobs. From a peak of 8.9 million on furlough, more than half of those remained in employment through the job support scheme. We are ensuring that more businesses are able to bring their staff back. But at the same time we are being honest. Some businesses will not be able to survive. That is why we put £2 billion into the kickstart scheme. It is why we are tripling traineeships. It is why we put funding into apprenticeships, with a £2,000 sign-on. It is why we are bringing forward infra- structure investment. It is to create those jobs for her constituents.

Jonathan Gullis: VAT cuts and business rates holidays were superb for the hospitality operators but unfortunately did not pass down to supply chains such as ceramic manufacturers. Flexibility needs to be introduced into the job support scheme to allow continuous manufacturers such as those in ceramics the ability to access the support of the scheme for their weekly workforce. What plans are being made to allow ceramic manufacturers such as Churchill China and Steelite the flexibility to access the support of this scheme?

Steve Barclay: There is always a balance between the operability of schemes, the speed at which one can deploy them and how bespoke one makes them. I know that my hon. Friend is a huge champion of the ceramics industry, and I know it is important to Stoke and to businesses in his constituency. If there are specific issues, I am happy to pick them up offline with him, but the key message we usually get from businesses is the importance of getting packages to people quickly and in particular of addressing the cash flow challenges that they face.

Mary Foy: Last week, the Chancellor announced that workers at businesses and workplaces forced to close would be eligible for grants worth two thirds of their salary. That is clearly not enough. Will the Minister tell me whether bills, rents and mortgages will be charged at two thirds of the usual amount? If not, will the Government extend the evictions ban?

Steve Barclay: We have addressed this already in a number of questions. The point is that it is not simply two thirds; it is dynamic, aligned with universal credit, which then moves to top that up. The package of support, which is above that provided by many of our European comparators, is, if combined with universal credit, at 88% in many circumstances, not 67%.

Rob Roberts: Stevie the Sweet—not everyone’s pet name for the Chief Secretary, but Stevie who has the sweet stall on Mold market in my constituency—yelled at me as I walked past on Saturday. “Oi,” he said, “that Boris and Rishi and all the Treasury team are all right by me.” That is the story up and down my Delyn constituency, where my small business owners commend the work done by the Treasury and the support they have been given during this pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when businesses in our tourism sector are being effectively locked down by draconian travel measures put in place by the Welsh Government, perhaps we need to step in and assist them a little more —for example, Greenacres and Tree Tops caravan parks in my constituency?

Steve Barclay: One of the strongest benefits to businesses in Wales, and indeed across the United Kingdom, is the broad shoulders and ability of the UK Treasury to act on behalf of the entire United Kingdom. That is a huge strength and it has helped to enable schemes such as furlough and others to be of benefit to businesses in Wales. On the measures put in place by national Governments, the more that is done through the Joint Biosecurity Centre with consistency, the better. But obviously, that is a decision for the Welsh Government.

Lindsay Hoyle: Tim Farron, follow that.

Tim Farron: I will do my best, Mr Speaker.
Outdoor education centres are a crucial part of our visitor economy. There are 60-plus of them in Cumbria, employing hundreds of talented people whose jobs are, I am afraid, now seriously at risk. Outdoor education centres provide huge benefits in personal development, education, and physical and mental health, which are particularly valuable, even essential, at this time. They are as safe to reopen as schools, yet they face imminent closure and ruin. Will the Minister meet with me and the heads of outdoor education centres so we can take urgent action to save them?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, and having lived in his constituency for a couple of years, I know how important outdoor education centres are to the economy. He is also quite right to point to their benefit to mental and physical health, often for young people, who have been particularly impacted in recent weeks. I suggest that I alert Ministers in the Department for Education to the specific concern he raises, so they can meet him so that the Department’s guidance can take his point on board.

Jack Brereton: The Conservative Government have stood up to protect jobs, incomes and businesses with unprecedented measures, so will my right hon. Friend reassure me that his priority  is to create, support and extend opportunity, especially for people in Stoke-on-Trent, where there is a need to grow the quality of job opportunities?

Steve Barclay: My hon. Friend is quite right: this is about not only working together to retain as many jobs as possible, but looking to the jobs of the future. He has constructive views on how we use levelling up in terms of the future jobs that can be offered in Stoke. We need to combine that with our commitments on infrastructure, broadband, research and development investment, and net zero, then look at those future jobs and the skills training that is offered to his constituents in Stoke, so that those who move from their current jobs can quickly get into those jobs of the future.

Lindsay Hoyle: In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Sitting suspended.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

School Breakfast

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Emma Lewell-Buck: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to provide breakfast club facilities; and for connected purposes.
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Across England this morning, more than 2 million children—that we know of—will have arrived at school ready to learn with a gnawing hunger in their stomach. Their day will be marked with worry about when they and others in their family might be able to eat again. That will have a significant impact on their learning, because hungry children do not learn, no matter how bright and determined they are, and no matter how amazing or dedicated their teachers are.
Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development, with hungry children suffering developmental impairments, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impact, which can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones. The physical and mental health consequences for those stuck in this hopeless situation are dire and long lasting. Research conducted prior to the pandemic found rising levels of hospital admissions for children due to malnutrition and a resurgence of Victorian diseases associated with hunger. Research last year also found that children who went without breakfast tended to be overweight and obese.
Schools in my constituency have said that, without this Bill, they may have to charge for or cease breakfast provision next year. Research by the University of Leeds found that children who eat a regular breakfast achieve an average of two GCSE grades higher than those who rarely eat breakfast. Not only is the Bill the morally right thing to do; it clearly makes no long-term economic sense to deprive children of this vital meal. Stories of children going to school with a grey pallor, under-nourished, rummaging through bins for food and wearing threadbare clothing are commonplace. Schools in South Shields have told me that children complain of persistent hunger and stomach pains. One little boy turned up for school having only had a small piece of chocolate for his breakfast. For some, the last time they had any food was their school dinner the day before, and for many children on free school meals, waiting until midday is too long. As one teacher said, it is three hours too late.
We know the statistics, facts and reality of the grinding and increasing poverty in daily life for so many children in our country, and we know that this is not the fault of their parents. There is not a single mam or dad I have spoken to who is not totally heartbroken and ashamed that their child is going without, but I remind them and their children that it is not their shame; it is the Government’s, because these levels of hunger were and are avoidable.
Last year, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights expressed so clearly how the ongoing policies of austerity introduced in  2010, welfare reform measures and inaction on low-paid and insecure work have had tragic social consequences. That view is supported by 65% of teachers, who, when surveyed by Magic Breakfast, said they felt that the Government were not doing enough to help children at risk of hunger.
Coronavirus has exacerbated poverty levels. In the first five weeks of lockdown, more than 2 million children experienced food insecurity. Over 1 million more children have become eligible for free school meals, and a staggering 4 million children are now living in poverty. Many are hungry every single day of the year, with no let-up in sight. When I was a child protection social worker, it was the children suffering from severe neglect who would be struggling in this way, but now we are faced with a generation of children for whom the hopelessness of austerity and poverty are becoming the norm.
I am acutely aware that this Bill will not address the underlying causes of hunger; nor will it be a panacea for every hungry child, but it absolutely will ensure that those who currently go without that first important meal of the school day no longer will. It will make a huge difference for families such as one family in my constituency who were visited by the local Key 2 Life Food Bank; volunteers went to a bare and desolate home, where they found three children and their mam in dire need. When a food parcel arrived for them, the children began to rip at the boxes with their hands, shaking with hunger. When we think of these children, we should all be lost for words. How, as a society, have we ever allowed this to happen?
Research has shown that the benefits of breakfast clubs go beyond food. Teachers and school staff have reported that children often make new friends at these clubs and have time to share their worries with staff, and for many, they can complete their homework using a computer and in the warmth.
The School Breakfast Bill is a simple, costed Bill which will ensure that, when the Government’s current breakfast club programme expires in 2021, there will be enshrined in legislation a commitment to a more comprehensive, evidence-based programme of school breakfast clubs. The Bill will ensure that all state-funded primary and secondary schools in England where at least 50% of pupils are in the income deprivation affecting children index receive funding from the soft drinks levy to deliver breakfasts for every single child in the school, including those children with no recourse to public funds, who are currently, shamefully, excluded from free school meals. Additionally, the Bill will allow for any school that has demonstrated a need for the provision to request funding.
I have always believed in the transformational power of education. It is certainly not standard for children from my background to end up in this place. The power of education should never be underestimated. The food that fuels the ability to learn and develop should never be understated. This Bill will make sure that socioeconomic status is not a deciding factor in good educational outcomes. It will make sure that where some of our children begin in life is not always where they end up.
This small, simple Bill will have a profound impact on the lives of so many. It is supported by over 30 respected national organisations, Marcus Rashford MBE, Yusuf  Islam—also known to many of us as Cat Stevens—and the Children’s Commissioner. Over 30,000 people have signed a petition in support of it, and over 70 Members across the House, including the excellent Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), also support the Bill. They all support it because they know that there is no justification and no argument robust enough to deny children a breakfast.
I want to say a big thank you to Magic Breakfast and Feeding Britain, which have worked tirelessly to make this Bill a reality. But the people who have really made the Bill possible are those parents and children who have been brave enough to share their pain with me. Despite the challenges they face, they have taken the time to use their experiences to try to make a difference for others. Their daily struggle should be something that we are all determined to change.
As I present this Bill, there will be children struggling to focus because their stomachs are rumbling. The persistent worry that comes with hunger will permeate their entire day. All of us in this place owe it to every single child who woke up hungry this morning and who will go to bed hungry tonight in one of the richest countries in the world to make sure that this Bill becomes law. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Sir David Amess, Robert Halfon, Paul Maynard, Dr Daniel Poulter, Christian Wakeford, Caroline Lucas, Nadia Whittome, Ian Mearns, Siobhain McDonagh, Wera Hobhouse and Mr Kevan Jones present the Bill.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 194).

Business of the House (Today)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16, proceedings on the first of the Motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown relating to Public Health regulations (S.I., 2020, Nos. 1103, 1104, 1105, 1005, 1008, 1046 and 1029) shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 6.00pm; the Speaker shall then put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on those Motions forthwith; such Questions, though opposed, may be put after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Stuart Andrew.)

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 181.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Public Health: Coronavirus Regulations

Eleanor Laing: The business of the House motion that the House has just agreed to provides for motions 3 to 9 on today’s Order Paper to be debated together, but I assure the House that the Question will be put separately on each motion at the end of the debate.

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1103), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.

Eleanor Laing: With this we shall take the following motions, on public health:
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1104), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1105), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1005), dated 17 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1008), dated 17 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1046), dated 26 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1029), dated 24 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.

Matthew Hancock: Two weeks ago, I pledged to the House that for significant national measures we will consult Parliament in advance of their coming into force wherever possible, and today we deliver on that commitment with votes tonight on national measures to slow the spread of coronavirus. This pandemic remains a formidable threat. Our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting the economy, education and the NHS, until a vaccine makes us safe, and I must report to the House that the number of cases of coronavirus has quadrupled in the last three weeks.
There are now more people in hospital with coronavirus than there were on 23 March, and in the last four weeks hospitals in the north-west and north-east of England have seen a sevenfold increase in the number of covid patients in intensive care. In those worst-affected areas, the virus is spreading just as quickly in older age groups, not just among younger adults.

Angela Eagle: Given that Liverpool city region, which includes my constituency of Wallasey, was placed in tier 3 yesterday, could the Secretary of  State outline whether there are plans to reopen or revive the Nightingale hospitals to serve that region? I do not mean the hospital in Manchester.

Matthew Hancock: Yes, as the hon. Lady will know, three Nightingale hospitals were put on alert yesterday to be reopened. The closest Nightingale is in Manchester, but we keep that under review because expanding the capacity of the NHS is one of the things that we can do. Nevertheless, no matter how big the NHS is, if the virus is not under control it will make more people need hospital treatment than there could possibly be hospital treatment available for. While we are, of course, restarting the Nightingales, which have been mothballed for months, that is only a precaution; it cannot be the full answer to the question. We had a very good discussion yesterday about the measures in Liverpool city region, which I will come on to in some detail.

Steve Brine: To follow on from what my right hon. Friend said about our strategy being to suppress the virus until a vaccine makes us safe—until science saves us—the Prime Minister yesterday was, very wisely, cautious in his answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) on the vaccine. What if it does not come, and what if it comes and the efficacy of it is not good enough, and there are challenges with roll-out and all sorts of other challenges that he and I know about—the anti-vaxxers notwithstanding? Can he give those of us who are nervous about—

Eleanor Laing: Order. This is not a question but a very quick intervention. I have89 people who want to speak. If there are to be interventions, they must be short.

Matthew Hancock: Of course, the work on a vaccine continues. No vaccine technology is certain, but we have already bought six different vaccines and there are more than 100 in development around the world. That is what underpins the strategy, and the work on the leading vaccines, including the AstraZeneca Oxford vaccine, continues effectively. We have seen, both here and overseas, just how quickly the virus can take hold, and we have to act now to get it under control.

Craig Whittaker: At the beginning of August, Calderdale had just four people in hospital with covid, zero in intensive care units, and spikes in just two wards. This morning, we have 43 people in hospital with covid, six in ICUs, 12 deaths this month, and almost 800 positive cases coming through. Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he is taking to ensure that the NHS is not overwhelmed by the virus in the coming months?

Eleanor Laing: Order. I have just said that we must not have long interventions. These points are for the speeches that people are waiting to make later. If a Member wants to intervene on the Secretary of State about something that he has just said, that is all very well, but if they make points about their constituencies at this stage rather than waiting until later, it is simply dishonourable; it is just not right.

Matthew Hancock: My hon. Friend—and he is an honourable man—makes an important point that has wider context than just his constituency, which is that  we must make sure that we control the virus. My heart goes out to the families of those in his constituency who have died. The only alternative to suppressing the virus is that it then expands exponentially. That is what happens with a virus when the R is above 1. I know that some people feel that we should adopt a more relaxed approach, but that will lead to more of the sort of thing that my hon. Friend has related from his constituency.
Some people have set out this more relaxed approach, including those in the so-called Great Barrington declaration. I want to take this argument head on, because on the substance, the Great Barrington declaration is underpinned by two central claims and both are emphatically false. First, it says that if enough people get covid, we will reach herd immunity. That is not true. Many infectious diseases never reach herd immunity, such as measles, malaria, AIDS and flu, and with increasing evidence of reinfection, we should have no confidence that we would ever reach herd immunity to covid, even if everyone caught it. Herd immunity is a flawed goal without a vaccine, even if we could get to it, which we cannot.
The second central claim is that we can segregate the old and vulnerable on our way to herd immunity. That is simply not possible. As the medical director of the NHS said yesterday, we cannot somehow fence off the elderly and the vulnerable from risk while everyone else returns to normal. It is neither conscionable nor practicable—not when so many people live in inter- generational homes, not when older people need carers who of course themselves live in the community, and not when young people can suffer the debilitating impact of long covid. Whenever we have seen cases among young people rise sharply, we then see cases among the over-60s rise inevitably thereafter, and we are not the kind of country that abandons our vulnerable or just locks them up.
If we let this virus continue unchecked, the loss of life would be simply too great to contemplate. We know that it would put our NHS at risk, as my hon. Friends have just said. We know that both because of what happened in March and because of what is happening right now. We have already heard from the heads of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine that, if we do not act fast and come together to quash the virus, we risk putting the NHS under extraordinary strain both for covid treatments and for non-covid treatments.

John Redwood: How long do the scientists think we will need these lockdowns for, and what is their exit plan?

Matthew Hancock: We have seen the exit plan from local lockdowns. For instance, in Leicester, where we had a firm local lockdown, the case rate came right down. We lifted that and we have sadly seen it start to rise again. The case rate is determined by the amount of social mixing, and it reduces during a lockdown. In some parts of the country where the case rate has continued to rise, there is an argument for further ensuring that we do not reach the level of contact that is at the root of the virus spreading. The challenge is how to calibrate the lockdown to get the virus under control while doing the minimum damage to the economy and to education.

Munira Wilson: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge—a simple yes or no—that we should not be in this position in the first place and that the best exit strategy is having an effective system of testing, tracing and isolating that is locally led? If that were working properly—even SAGE has admitted that it is not—we would not be here.

Matthew Hancock: We have one of the biggest systems of tracking and tracing in the world. The idea that I sometimes get from people in this House is that, somehow, it is not one of the biggest systems in the world or one of the most effective in the world. I get that in this House, but I do not get it when I talk to my international colleagues. They ask me, “How did you manage to build this capacity so fast?” That is the truth of it.
Of course we need to continue to build it and to make sure it is continuously more integrated into the local communities, who can often go to reach the contacts that the national system finds it hard to reach. However, to argue that the enormous system that is working so effectively, with so many brilliant people working on it, is at the root of this challenge is, unfortunately, to miss the big picture, which is that, sadly, this virus passes on—until we have a vaccine or a massive testing capacity that nobody yet has, this virus passes on through social contact and that is, unfortunately, what we need to tackle in order to get this under control.
Let me make a point about the numbers. In the first peak, about 8% of people caught covid and 42,000 people died. If we do not have the virus under control, even with the better survival rates we now have, thanks to both drug discoveries by British science and improvements in clinical practice, those figures will multiply. In addition, harder economic measures would then inevitably be needed to get it under control and they would be needed for longer. If you, Madam Deputy Speaker, like me, want our economy back on full throttle, we need to keep this virus in check.

Dan Carden: Yesterday, in his call with Merseyside MPs, the Health Secretary was asked about a circuit breaker lockdown and he did not say that SAGE had recommended that three weeks ago. Is that the case? Will he now publish the full scientific evidence for a circuit breaker lockdown?

Matthew Hancock: The SAGE advice that Ministers receive is, of course, published; we have had great debates in this House about that and it is published. We make decisions that are guided by the science, taking into account all the different considerations we need to look to.

Mark Harper: It is worth giving credit to the NHS Test and Trace team for the growth in testing, but the evidence published yesterday said that the impact of the testing and tracing system was having only a marginal effect on reducing the virus. So can the Secretary of State look not just in high-risk areas, but in all areas to get more of the contact tracing done by our fantastic directors of public health and their teams?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely. We are doing precisely that. The way it works where it works best is that the big national system makes the immediate and rapid contact with people who test positive—for more than half of  people that is immediately successful—and then when contacts are harder to make the data is passed to the local teams, which do not have the scale to do the immediate, rapid contacting but do have the boots on the ground and the local knowledge. That combination of the two is what works best where it works well.

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend is making a compelling case, but will he bear in mind that in the west midlands we are concerned that yesterday’s change was made on the basis of neatness, not of medical need? Will he reassure me that he will always listen carefully to the West Midlands Mayor, Andy Street, as these matters all develop?

Matthew Hancock: Yes. The introduction of the three-level system means that, in some areas where the local area has been working so effectively to get the curve flattened, as in the west midlands, under the leadership of Andy Street—there has been a rise in the past few days of data, but essentially a huge amount of progress has been made—changes have had to be made. However, I will absolutely recommit to working with Andy Street, who is an incredibly effective voice for the west midlands, to make sure that what we can do together can best deliver to control the virus in the west midlands. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who makes the case on this so effectively, because protecting our economy and protecting our health are not alternatives. We must act and keep the virus under control to protect lives and livelihoods. I strongly believe that every one of us, young or old, has the ability to suppress the virus through the actions we take and the best way to protect the vulnerable, support the NHS and protect the economy is to get the rate of transmission down.
I turn to the steps we are taking to do that and, therefore, the instruments before the House today. Yesterday, the Prime Minister provided an update on the measures we are taking, which centre on three local covid alert levels in England.

Kevin Hollinrake: The rate of transmission varies significantly within the eight different districts of North Yorkshire. When we are looking at putting different areas into different tiers, can we look at that by district rather than at county level?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, absolutely, and I will go further than that: we look at this at sub-district level, if that is appropriate. In High Peak we put four wards into level 2 and the rest of the wards stayed in level 1. So we are prepared to look at the sub-district level if that is appropriate. Some districts within North Yorkshire have individual outbreaks in individual institutions that we are managing, and we should not mistake that for general community transmission and therefore put those areas into a higher level than is necessary. I am happy to go through the local epidemiology from near Thirsk that affects my hon. Friend’s constituency.
In a sense, that brings us to the point of these local covid alert levels. These are the first statutory instruments to be debated under our commitment to consult Parliament on significant national measures that have effect in the whole of England or are UK-wide and, wherever possible, to hold votes before the regulations come into force. That is what we are doing today.
Local action has proved to be one of our most important lines of defence. Where firm action has been taken—for instance in Leicester, or in Bolton, where we flattened the curve—our local approach has inevitably produced different sets of rules in different parts of the country, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) set out. We have already moved towards simpler national rules that are centred on the rule of six, and we are now acting to simplify and standardise the rules at a local level.
The regulations set out three levels of alert: medium, high and very high. The medium alert level, which will cover most of the country, will consist of the current national measures. This includes the rule of six and the closure of hospitality at 10 pm. The high alert level reflects the interventions in many local areas at the moment and that aims to reduce household-to-household transmission by preventing social mixing between different households indoors, with the rule of six outdoors. That is super-simple: no household mixing socially indoors and the rule of six outdoors.
The very high alert level will apply where transmission rates are rising most rapidly and where the NHS will soon be under unbearable pressure without further restrictions. In those areas the Government will set a baseline of prohibiting social mixing, while allowing households to mix in public outdoor spaces, because that is where the risk of transmission is lowest, as long as the rule of six is followed. That baseline is set out in the very high alert level regulations being considered today. Pubs and bars will be closed, and we will advise against travel into and out of very high-risk areas.
We also offer a package of support for individuals, businesses and councils. That includes more support for local test and trace, which many have asked for, more funding for local enforcement and the offer of help from the armed services, as well as the job support scheme announced by the Chancellor. That is best done as a team effort and, wherever possible, we want to build local support on the ground before we introduce these measures. So in each area we will work with local government leaders on the extra measures that need to be taken. We do not rule out further restrictions in the hospitality, leisure, entertainment, or personal care sectors, but retail, schools and universities will remain open.

Luke Evans: On buying-in the local community, would the Secretary of State consider having a Government postcode checker so that people know exactly where they should be, in having the three tiers?

Justin Madders: That was my idea.

Matthew Hancock: My friend, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), says from a sedentary position that that was his idea, but success has many fathers and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that such a postcode checker was launched this morning. I will send him the link. It is still in beta, so it will be constantly improved, not least to ensure that, if a postcode covers an area that is in two different levels, that is clear. That is being sorted at the moment. A postcode checker is a great idea. It tells you the level of local risk. Furthermore, the  NHS covid app, which has now been downloaded by over 17 million people, has a link to the local alert level as well.
To turn back to the measures before us, we will keep the measures under constant review. The overarching regulations sunset after six months, but regulation 8(1) of statutory instrument 1105 makes clear that the allocation of a particular area to local alert level 3 will automatically expire after 28 days. We will work with local areas on the level they need to be at and that work continues at pace. Decisions to move local areas between the levels will be considered by the JBC, working across Government and with local government on the normal weekly cycle. While, of course, there will be times when we need to act quickly to contain the virus, we want to give the House the opportunity to consider the measures on the medium and high local alert levels, and the baseline measures for the very high alert level. I urge the House to support the measures set out today.

Aaron Bell: The Secretary of State mentions that they will work with local authorities when moving authorities between areas. Will he also give time to measures that local authorities may already be taking, such as in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to see their effect before moving areas from one tier to another?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, that is a very important point. Taking into account all local considerations, and working with the local director of public health and political leadership, is important to get exactly that sort of consideration into the decisions.
I would like to set out, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, the details of where we have reached with the Liverpool city region. Liverpool will move on to level 3 tomorrow. As well as the baseline measures—that is, as well as closing pubs and bars—gyms, leisure centres, betting shops, adult gaming centres and casinos will also close. I thank all the local authorities that have been working with us to keep the virus under control, but there is more work to do.
The regulations under consideration today include measures on the obligations for businesses. Statutory instrument 1005 makes it a legal requirement for a range of premises to collect, retain and, where relevant, disclose contact details as part of NHS Test and Trace. Statutory instrument 1008 allows for fixed penalty notices to be given for breaches of covid-secure business guidance in various settings, primarily hospitality. These are amended by SI 1046, which adds the need for a range of premises to display information about the need to wear face coverings.
SI 1029 increases the fines for those flouting targeted action to close specific public places that are a threat to public health. Although SI 1029 was intended to deliver the 10 pm closing time when laid, the elements relating to the 10 pm closing time are superseded by the local alert level system. The powers in SI 1029 are therefore revoked. In practice, the effect of SI 1029 is to deliver enforcement against individual places that have been flouting the rules, which is the one of the top demands of councils in their fight against coronavirus. I know that most people and most businesses have been doing their bit. These changes are there to ensure that the vast majority of responsible businesses are not undermined by others that are not following the rules.

Huw Merriman: The Secretary of State talks about a regulation on pubs closing at 10 o’clock, which has been in force for four weeks. There may be some undoubted positives for health, but we see some negatives with people amassing together on public transport and in the streets. Do the positives outweigh the negatives, as far as the science is concerned?

Matthew Hancock: Yes, I believe that they do, and I will give three reasons why I think these measures are the right ones. The first is that we already now have evidence from accident and emergency departments that we have seen a reduction in alcohol-related admissions late at night, after the 10 pm curfew. That is important in its own right, but it is also a proxy, a measure of how much people are drinking late at night. Therefore, it is evidence that there is less mixing and less drinking late at night.
The second is that, while people may be coming out and mixing after 10 pm, they are doing so largely outside, when they would otherwise be mixing inside the premises; it is just easier to photograph outside.
The final point, though, and the appeal I make to the House on this, is as follows: since, sadly, in order to control this virus, we need to reduce the amount of social contact, and since we are trying to protect, as much as is possible, education and work, that essentially leaves socialising as the other part of life—of activity—where people transmit the virus. It is therefore understandable that Governments around the world and around this United Kingdom, Governments of all different stripes and political persuasions, have all come to broadly the same conclusion that it is necessary to restrict socialising, because that way we reduce the transmission with the least damage to education and the economy. While there is both direct and proximate evidence for the positive impact of this measure, there is also the strategic point that, if we wanted to control the virus and we were not to do this, we would have to do something else, and as a matter of policy choice we want to protect education and protect work.
I will now come to my concluding remarks. We know only too well the damage this lethal virus can inflict, the strain it can put on our NHS and the way it can upend our closest relationships and our freedom to do the things we love. I know that we are asking a lot of the British people, but we also know that together we can shift this curve, and we are now called upon to do it once more. The measures before the House today will help in that fight, and I commend the regulations to the House.

Eleanor Laing: Just before I call the shadow Secretary of State, it will be obvious to the House, both those in the Chamber and those watching around the building, that I have more than 80 people who are trying to catch my eye and that we have until 6 pm to conclude the debate. I am afraid that, in order to be fair to everybody, because I appreciate that this is not an occasion for long-thought-out speeches on matters of principle, but on matters to do with individual constituencies, and to try to give as many people from as many parts of the country as possible the chance to contribute, we will start with a time limit of three minutes.

Jon Ashworth: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have heard your message loud and clear; I will endeavour to be brief and not to detain the House for too long, given the points you have rightly made.
The House will understand that we are grappling with a virus that spreads with speed and severity. Throughout this crisis, we have urged the Government to adopt an approach with the strategic aim of suppressing the virus and bringing the R below 1 in order to save lives, minimise harm and keep our children in school. That has to be our priority, and no one should be surprised that, as we are in autumn and going into winter, that presents us with immense challenges.
Before the summer, the Academy of Medical Sciences, in a report commissioned by the Government, modelled that we could see 119,000 deaths between September 2020 and June 2021. The academy also warned, as did we, that without an effective test, trace and isolate regime the virus would get out of control. Sadly, we were proved correct. The Secretary of State has run through the numbers on the prevalence of the virus, but I will just underline the point that hospital admissions are rising.
Yesterday, there were 3,665 patients in hospital in England, 568 more than on 23 March when we went into lockdown. Since September, 856 patients have been admitted to critical care across England, Wales and Northern Ireland—more with every week that goes by. The largest number of critical admissions are in the north-west, north-east, Yorkshire and the midlands. More than 100 patients are on ventilation for covid across the north-east and Yorkshire. More than 130 patients are on ventilation across the north-west.
A disproportionate number of those in critical care today are from poorer backgrounds and from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. That is a reminder that covid thrives on and exaggerates inequalities, and that any long-term covid strategy cannot just rely on a vaccine but demands an all-out assault on health inequalities as well.
Just as hospital beds fill, there are more concerns about the availability of beds for the rest of winter. Last week, there were warnings that some hospitals across the north of England are set to run out of beds for covid patients within days, and NHS Providers reminded us that the sustained physical, psychological and emotional pressure on health staff is threatening to push them beyond their limits. The British Medical Association is saying that without stringent measures rapidly introduced, the NHS and its workforce will very quickly be overwhelmed. This House cannot overstate how serious the situation is.
Yes, as the Secretary of State said, our clinicians have made extraordinary strides in treatment. We know that steroid and antiviral drugs will help improve mortality, but we also know that when infections rise, as night follows day, hospitalisations rise, and, sadly and tragically, that means that more will die as well. For those who avoid hospitalisation, many can be afflicted with serious, long-term, debilitating health problems—so-called long covid. None of us knows whether those conditions—that syndrome—will last for the rest of their lives or whether they will recover in the next 12 months.
Just as we have to protect our NHS, we cannot allow the mass, industrial halt to elective surgery and delays in treatment never seen before in the history of the NHS. We have to mobilise our national health service to perform the care for non-covid patients as well. The decision in March, although entirely understandable—I do not criticise the Government for taking it—has bequeathed us waiting lists of 4 million. Today there are 111,000 people waiting beyond 12 months for treatment. In January of this year, there were just 1,600. Three million people have missed out on vital cancer screening. One in three cancer patients has said that their treatment has been impacted by the effects of covid. I make these points not to criticise the Secretary of State but to reinforce the point that we have to protect our national health service as we go into the winter months.
I know that no Member across this House is complacent about these matters. Every hon. and right hon. Member is united and determined to see infection rates reduce and care improved. I know that everyone across this House wants to see the immense backlog in non-covid care tackled. I know that none of us wants to see this virus let rip and leave the weakest and the frail to fend for themselves. So I do not come to this House to caricature the position of any hon. Member. Our differences are about how we apply the tools we have at our disposal, and how we confront this, the biggest public health crisis for 100 years.
We know, as the Secretary of State said, that the virus thrives on close human contact, especially where air is stagnant and in conditions that are poorly ventilated. We know that the virus is airborne. We know that fundamentally our best defences are hand hygiene, distancing, mask wearing, and avoiding crowds. But we also know that a full national lockdown stretching for weeks and weeks, like we had through April, with a rule, effectively, of one-household contact—a rule of one, indeed, for some people—would be disastrous for society. Again, I do not believe that anyone in the House is proposing that.
The question is what measures can be taken now to bring R below 1 without resorting to that full lockdown. We know that when 8 million children returned to school, that would have put upward pressure on infection rates. I am critical of the Government for not providing the extra testing capacity that would have been needed, as should have been obvious. Yet we must do everything we can to keep our children in school. The implications of children not being in school are devastating for their life chances and development. We know that crowded public transport puts upward pressure on infection rates, but I do not believe that any Member of this House would consider it sensible to close public transport networks—to close the underground or to close the Metrolink across Manchester. We know we have to encourage people to work from home, and many are doing that, but we also know that there are many who cannot work from home, and they should be protected with access to mass testing—particularly NHS staff. I hope that the Government get on with routine testing of frontline NHS staff. We have repeatedly called for the Government to do that.
That then therefore leaves us with few levers to pull. That brings me to hospitality, because—I am sorry to have to say it—pubs and bars do bring people together. Every Member across this House knows that after a few  drinks people lose their inhibitions. It should come as no surprise to us that social distancing breaks down, and if bars and pubs are poorly ventilated—as, sadly, some are—then airborne transmission is more of a risk. I know that Members will point out to me, as they have in the past few days, that the data show that household interaction is the biggest driver of transmission. That is correct—but how does the virus get into the household in the first place? It does not come down the chimney, like Father Christmas: someone brings it into the house.
If we cannot close, schools, workplaces or shops and cannot shut public transport, the only lever that we have is hospitality, so, yes, we support the restrictions announced yesterday by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister. We know from experience in Bolton and Leicester that the pub closures had an impact—the virus is still prevalent in my city and in Bolton—but without the closures the virus would have been driven up further.
We therefore support the announced measures, difficult as they are. Indeed, we support the measures aimed at constraining the time people can spend in the pub. I understand the Secretary of State’s procedural points about the instruments before us and the 10 pm curfew, and he knows that I know that many Members are deeply sceptical about that curfew. We will not stand in the way of the passing of the statutory instrument, but if the House’s procedures had allowed it, we would have proposed an amendment to implement the Welsh scenario, where there is drinking-up time, off sales are banned after 10 o’clock and there is no hard stop at 10 pm.
We have all seen the pictures that the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned, although I must say to many of my hon. Friends who made the point about city centres being full of revellers after leaving the pub that it is not as though we have seen such pictures only once the 10 pm curfew was introduced—we have seen them before in our city centres, sadly. I have been on public transport after 11 pm! This is a longstanding issue. The 10 pm curfew does not help it, but let us not pretend it has caused all these issues.

Steve Brine: If the hon. Gentleman could amend the instrument, would he amend it so that off licences cannot sell after 10 pm?

Jon Ashworth: I think I made that point, but, yes, I most certainly would. If I had proposed that amendment, I hope the hon. Gentleman would have joined us in the Division Lobby, although I know that since leaving the Government he has been very lax about going through the Lobby with the Opposition—[Interruption.] I drank my water too quickly as the hon Gentleman’s intervention was shorter than I anticipated—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon; I assure Members it is not the virus.
Many Members affected by this in recent days will know that the decisions made to put an area into restriction will be effective only if they are made in conjunction with local people. I know that extremely well as a Leicester Member, where we have had restrictions for 105 or 106 days. People in towns such as Bury or Bolton or across Greater Manchester or in boroughs  such as Wolverhampton, West Bromwich or parts of Birmingham need clarity about their future and local leaders need reassurance that there is a plan. Local leaders need reassurance that if they are put into a tier there is a plan to get them out of it and moved into the lower tiers. It is not clear at the moment why particular areas are in the medium tier and not in, for example, tier 2. I do not want to pick on my near parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), but I hope he can explain when he responds to the debate why the city of Leicester is in tier 2 with restrictions yet his constituency, where the infection rate is 150 per 100,000, is not. Why is North East Derbyshire, where the rate is 164 per 100,000, not in that tier? Why is Barrow, where the rate is 277 per 100,000, not in that tier? There are many other examples across the House. People living in areas where restrictions are in place would like to be reassured that there is some consistency in these matters and that decisions are made transparently. I do not want to pick on the hon. Gentleman’s area, but he will see the point I am trying to make.
Of course, the areas where hospitality has closed need support to save jobs and protect livelihoods. At the moment, there is a financial package on offer for tier 3 —the Opposition do not think it goes far enough; we do not think it is adequate—but there is no financial support for tier 2, even though there will be a significant impact on the local economy, as we have seen in Leicester. On tiers 2 and 3, could the Minister, in responding to the debate, say a little bit about care homes? What does he say to the thousands of families who, under tier 2 and now tier 3, will not be able to visit their loved ones in care homes? The impact on a loved one in a care home of not being able to see their family is immense, especially in the winter months as we run up to Christmas. What steps will the Government take to support those areas in tiers 2 and 3 so that families can safely resume visiting their loved ones? Will he commit to a 24-hour turnaround in test results in care homes so that care homes and residents are protected?
This brings me to testing and tracing. One of the great strides we made in Leicester was door-to-door testing. Can the Minister guarantee that any areas in tier 2 and tier 3 will get capacity for door-to-door testing? Back in August, the Government promised that local areas would have more control over test and trace, with dedicated teams backed up by local authorities, but under this tiered system it was reported yesterday that only areas in tier 3 would have greater local control over contact tracing and testing. Why was this not put in place months ago, and why has it not been put in place everywhere across the country, not just for tier 3? This is the point that the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made, and he made it extremely well.
I am sorry, but the testing and tracing regime has become a broken system that continues to misfire. We even have SAGE now warning that it is having a marginal impact on transmission, as the right hon. Gentleman said. To be frank, and I know Conservative Member will groan at this, if Serco has not come up with a solution by now, it never will. Scrap the contract, put public health and local NHS partnerships in control of testing, and invest in the widespread backward contact tracing we need. It is still only in its infancy, but it is absolutely vital to getting in control of the virus, and we need to expand it at a local level.

Munira Wilson: Does the hon. Member agree with me that one of the other reasons why SAGE said that test, trace and isolate is having a marginal impact is because the “isolate” part is not working, and that rather than slapping £10,000 fines on people for not self-isolating, what we actually need to do is provide incentives and support so that people isolate?

Jon Ashworth: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I agree entirely with her. I have been having these exchanges with the Secretary of State on almost a twice-weekly basis, and when I go over the remarks I have made at the Dispatch Box and remind myself of what he has said at the Dispatch Box in case I can catch him out, throw quotes back at him and all that kind of stuff, I have noticed that we were making this argument months and months ago. It is not good enough just to give one £500 payment; people need support to isolate. If they are poor and on a zero-hours contract, and they are forced to make a choice between not feeding their family or going to work, they will go to work. That has been one of the most significant failures in the test, trace and isolate regime, and the Government, I am afraid to say, still have not fixed it. We would argue again that they have to put testing and tracing in the hands of public health and local NHS partnerships, because unless we get testing sorted out, we will have a never-ending rollercoaster of restrictions, while deaths and damage continue.
When it comes to the overall set of restrictions announced yesterday, the fundamental question for us as an Opposition is not whether they go too far, but whether the overall package in fact goes far enough. A question was posed by the chief medical officer himself at the Downing Street press conference yesterday. He commented that the areas worst hit by covid will need extra measures on top of those announced on Monday if infection rates are to be significantly lowered. The question is: will the measures announced yesterday reverse the rising tide of hospital admissions and reverse the rising tide of critical care admissions? I obviously hope so; but I am sorry, I fear it will not. The rate of growth in the virus may at this stage be quicker in the northern regions, but the embers are burning brightly everywhere else as well, and I fear further action is going to be needed.
The Prime Minister says he follows the science. Yesterday the SAGE minutes that came out—after the press conference, frustratingly—warned of a very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences, and said that the burden of a large second wave would fall disproportionately on the frailest in society, and on those on lower incomes and from the black, Asian and minority ethnic community. That last point is exactly what is currently happening in our intensive care units across the country.
The same minutes reveal that the Government were advised to close all hospitality, move all university teaching online and put in place a national circuit break three weeks ago, with immediate action. The Government rejected that advice, presumably in favour of the measures that we are debating today. Of course, it is only advice to Government—Ministers are perfectly within their rights to choose what advice to take and not to take; to govern is indeed to choose—but the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have come to the Dispatch Box week after week and told us that they are following the science. So at what precise moment did the Prime Minister stop following the science?
I am sorry to say that SAGE advised the Government to take action in March, but the Prime Minister was too slow. After the Prime Minister spoke yesterday, we saw that yet again he has been advised to take action and has so far refused. It is the same virus, the same delays, the same country and the same Government making the same mistakes again. Our constituents will ask, “Is history repeating itself?” If these tiers do not work, then what? Tier 4? Tier 5? What is the plan? Well, there isn’t one.
We had whack-a-mole—a fairground game—but there was never a strategy, just a soundbite from the circus ring showman. We have had exaggerated claims, complaints when challenged and a lack of transparency with the public, but further action and a clear plan are needed. Just at the time when hospital admissions are rising again, we have the Prime Minister hanging on to a rising balloon, and—to quote “Withnail and I”—not knowing whether to
“let go before it’s too late or hang on and keep getting higher”.
We have the highest deficit in Europe, the worst recession in Europe and are now not even pretending to follow the science. We will not divide the House against these restrictions, because we believe they are necessary as far as they go, but I fear that the Government now need to go further. The sooner that the Prime Minister is clear with the British public, the better.

Andrew Murrison: I support these restrictions with a heavy heart. On balance, I will be supporting the Government this evening, but I want to make just a few quick points.
I would be very careful about subscribing to the Vallance/Whitty orthodoxy that informed these regulations, while not at all examining very carefully respectable bodies of medical opinion to the contrary. I would cite particularly the Heneghan/Sikora/Gupta line. It is important that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team address those things head-on and treat them with the respect that they deserve.
The Secretary of State has my utmost sympathy. When coming into office, he opened a box marked “public health” and found tools for doing all sorts of things, such as sorting out lifestyle problems—obesity, smoking, diet and all of that. I suspect that he found very few that were geared towards dealing with infectious diseases, particularly this infectious disease. He has done some good things to try to remedy that in a very short space of time. May I suggest to him, to sort out the shadow Secretary of State’s obsession with Serco, that he looks again at the Public Health Laboratory Service, which was in its second incarnation as the Health Protection Agency when it was abolished in 2012. He might find in such a thing the means to deal with infectious diseases of this sort in the future.
We need to be careful about groupthink, confirmation bias, a thin evidential basis and uncertainty masquerading as certainty. There is a huge margin of uncertainty with all this, and we all need to develop a level of humility in our attitudes towards dealing with this crisis. That is why I shall be supporting the Government this evening.

Debbie Abrahams: I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. In 2016, Operation Cygnus was very clear  about what needed to happen. It was a question not of if there was going to be a pandemic; it was when. The Government failed to introduce all the recommendations from that exercise. I will not let them get away with this.

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Lady can do what she likes. The Secretary of State is dealing with the situation that he found at the time. Developing the National Institute for Health Protection in short order from the disaster that was Public Health England was, I think, a very good effort, but there is much more to be done, as I know he appreciates.
May I sound a cautionary note for the Secretary of State? We have gone to great measures to close down schools, and I appreciate the need for that. That was informed, of course, by the Imperial College model, which was a flu model, in essence, and was inadequate for this particular virus. He will know—I hope he does—of the work published in September by the University of Edinburgh group under Ackland, which suggests that that certainly did suppress admissions to ITU. It certainly protected the NHS, but probably over time, unless we get a vaccine, it will cause more deaths directly from covid, quite apart from the incidentals for other diseases, the loss of liberty and livelihood. The Secretary of State needs to understand that and that there is an alternative view. If we do not get a vaccine, I fear, paradoxically, that we will see more deaths, not fewer, as a result of some of the interventions that we have put in place. Of course, Ackland was unsighted on this latest set, but the logic would suggest that those measures too may, over time, if we get a third and fourth wave, cause more trouble than they solve. It is a respectable piece of work and the Secretary of State needs to take account of it.
In all this, we simply do not know and we are learning all the time. We have to accept, I think, the expertise of those advising Ministers and that we have experts for a reason, but there is an alternative view. Unless we get a vaccine—goodness me, I hope we do—I think we may find that the cure is worse than the disease in terms of lives lost directly to covid, incidental lives lost to other common diseases—stroke, heart attack and particularly cancer—loss of liberty, loss of livelihood and the compete trashing of our economy. That is what is at stake. I do not envy the Secretary of State in his work.

Derek Twigg: It does appear that anybody who questions or expresses doubts about the Government’s approach to coronavirus is accused of wanting to let the virus rip, which is patently untrue. I support a number of the rules that have been introduced. This is all about what the balance is, what is common sense, whether we are going too far the other way, the impact on civil liberties, and what will work and have a significant impact on trying to control the virus. That is where the debate is and why some of us are raising questions.
These statutory instruments come on top of as many as four previous announcements between 14 September and 3 October on additional national or local restrictions. The last was a few days ago on 3 October. There lies part of the problem: we have another raft of rules in  these SIs today yet the public are bewildered and confused about the previous changes. That has resulted in many people not listening anymore. They just want to use their common sense and get on with their lives. They want more clarity. There is a minority who do not follow the rules, but why should everybody else be penalised and have their civil liberties affected as well? Of course we want more enforcement of sensible, common-sense rules, and we need resources to be able to do that locally, in addition to hand washing, social distancing and face masks, which I will return to shortly.
I have spoken to the chief executives of both my local hospitals. They tell me that they are under increasing pressure and that there is a spike in admissions above the normal expected, but I am also told that the majority who have been admitted are over 70. That is not different from the start of the pandemic, so it should have been no surprise to the Government.
The second part of the SIs sets out more restrictions on business. I am contacted every day by businesses who are in trouble and constituents who are worried about losing their jobs. Two thousand more people have become unemployed in Halton since March. Nobody understands the reasoning behind the 10 pm curfew for hospitality. I have been inundated by constituents about the closure of gyms. Many of my constituents tell me how much has been done to make them safer and about the impact it will have on their physical and mental health if they close. They want to see the evidence and reasoning for closing them.
We do not hear enough from the Government on the unintended consequences of restrictions on healthcare and the impact on diseases such as cancer and heart disease. Many of my constituents do not support the measures to put Halton into tier 3, and I share their scepticism and concern. I have not seen the evidence to give my support to them. We seem to be being used as a guinea pig.
We need to better protect our elderly and vulnerable. We need to better enforce the rules that are sensible and common sense. We need to sort out the test, trace and isolate system, which is not having the impact that it should. We need more competence from this Government and better data to be shared with the public and MPs. This Government have got many things wrong, and they continue to do so. I have no trust in this Government and the way they are working. We need to ensure that we have competent and proper reasoning behind these decisions.

Kieran Mullan: I want to focus my remarks on whether there is currently any viable alternative to the lockdown measures that have been put in place in my constituency. In my view, there is not. The argument put forward by some is that we could somehow isolate or protect the vulnerable, to allow the rest of us to carry on with our lives as normal, but how realistic is that? We have to be clear about the number of people that we are talking about. This is not just about people in their 80s. Our current understanding is that approximately one in every 200 people in their 50s and 60s affected by coronavirus will die. For people in their 70s and above, that figure is more like one in 10. Taken together, those age groups add up to something like 25 million people. How viable is it to keep them safe?
In answering that question, we must not compare it with how successfully we have been able to do that so far, because if we abandon lockdown measures for everyone else, there will be one key difference. Right now, as we are all involved in the national effort to stop the spread of the virus, we all play a part in keeping the levels of the virus low. That means that when a grandparent meets up with their grandchildren, their grandchildren probably do not have the virus. It means that when a plumber turns up to fix a pensioner’s boiler, they probably do not have the virus. It means that when a carer arrives to help get an infirm person out of bed, they probably do not have the virus. Most importantly, it means that when an older person managing their chronic illnesses turns up to their next GP or hospital appointment, the receptionist, the nurses, the doctors and the people in the waiting room probably do not have the virus. That is because we are all playing our part in trying to stop the spread.
If we were to let the virus spread among the rest of the population, we can forget all of that. We would reach a point where, in every single one of those examples, the vulnerable person would stand a very real chance of catching the virus because it would be rampant. That is the reality of the strategy that some are proposing. We would effectively be telling 25 million people to play Russian roulette every time they step outside their door—they can hug their grandchildren, but they run a real risk of catching a deadly disease if they do that. They can go to work, but they run a very real risk of catching a deadly disease if they do that. Most importantly, if they go to their cancer screening, their radiotherapy or their chemotherapy, again, they run a very real risk of catching a deadly disease. That is no choice at all.
But we do have a choice, and that is to persevere. It is not easy, and I have no doubt that we are paying a terrible price in terms of the economy, our wellbeing and our health, but I simply cannot see how that price would be outweighed by the loss of life on the scale we would see and the restrictions we would have to put in place on 25 million people if we were to give up. I do not think we can justify abandoning the older members of our society to their fate—not when, if we buy them more time, I believe we will find other ways forward. Whether it is a vaccine or mass daily testing, science will provide us with the solutions. I could be wrong. We could lose that battle in the long run, but we have not lost it yet, and I do not think the British people are ready to surrender; I know I am not. We must push on with these measures.

Maria Eagle: The coronavirus situation on Merseyside is such that I accept that something serious needs to be done. Yesterday in Aintree University Hospital and the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, there were 279 coronavirus-positive patients—the highest number in any English hospital. There is substantial and widespread community transmission, with 600 cases per 100,000, and not only in student areas. There is a worryingly high incidence of spread to vulnerable groups, particularly people over 65 years old, and 31 are in critical care, so something definitely needs to be done.
However, I worry that the way in which the Government have handled the pandemic and its manifestations so far, and the impact that this has had on the situation in  the north-west, is not helping. There is a widespread feeling that lockdown was lifted in Liverpool city region before cases had fallen far enough. The failings and increasingly poor performance of the nationally arranged test and trace system are making control of the virus much harder. People are waiting many days to get results. Many contacts of those testing positive are going untraced until it is too late for isolation to make a big difference.
The lack of discussion and candour until recently and even engagement with local leaders, Mayors and MPs means that there is a trust issue. That was worsened by yesterday’s briefing, at which the CMO suggested he was not confident that the tier 3 base measures would stop the epidemic growing, which the Prime Minister told the House they would. We then learned from the SAGE minutes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said, about widespread scientific advice not being followed three weeks ago. We need—I urge the Minister—more transparency and more openness from Government. We do not have enough of that. Let us have the information in real time and let us work on it together.
Most of all, we need proper financial support for the people on Merseyside affected by these serious restrictions. Tier 3 measures are going to devastate some of our lowest-paid workers. We cannot defeat the virus on the cheap and we should not do it on the basis of the living standards of the poorest. The assistance proposed so far is inadequate to the task.
According to the TUC, there are 41,000 people in the city region area who might benefit from the local furlough scheme, but there are many, many thousands more whose businesses will not be forced to close but who will not benefit by one penny from these proposals or from this support. It is not enough. More is going to have to be done to support local people in tier 3 areas and to prevent penury from following the pandemic.

John Redwood: The Government are desperately trying to find that balance point between protecting livelihoods and protecting lives, and I am grateful to them for all they are doing to try to bring that off, but the only way forward is to get maximum buy-in from the public. There is no perfect set of rules or laws that can be enforced. We do not have enough police and that would require a mighty explanation task, so the more they can do by means of persuasion, the better. Sharing with the public the dangers and showing them how hand washing, distancing and not mingling in enclosed spaces are going to work are the way forward. I am apprehensive about how much of this is enforceable.
Test and trace can work only if people who are traced are willing to co-operate. Quite a lot of people leave funny names, apparently, or they are not available when people are trying to contact them, or when they are told that they are a contact, they decide they are too busy to follow the procedures. They might genuinely be too busy and have real conflicts in their lives about looking after relatives, sorting out children, cooking meals at home or whatever it is, and it is very difficult suddenly to isolate if they do not have the property and the means to do all that, so we need to carry them with us. There needs to be a more energetic reliance on persuasion and less on formal rules.
My other worry about this strategy is that we need a plan B for the possibility that there is no early and successful vaccine. We all hope that the Secretary of State is right and we all hope that, by spring, there is a vaccine that works that can be produced at scale and that enough people want to take it so the problem goes away, but there might not be and this might fall down on one or more of those requirements. I urge the Government to think through what is plan B, because we do not want this continuous cycle where the virus pops up, we impose controls, the virus goes down a bit, we relax the controls and the virus pops up again.
That is deeply destructive to social life and community life. It is going to destroy many more businesses and many more livelihoods. Many more jobs are going to be lost. Businesses need some greater certainty that they will be able to trade, so I urge the Government to be more open with us about what is plan B for no vaccine and more open with everyone about how long these controls have to last and what their purposes are.
The 10 o’clock rule has become the iconic one that is opposed by some and supported by others. The problem with it is that people find easy ways round it. They comply with leaving the pub, but then congregate in each other’s homes and use off-licence booze. They might be breaking the rule of six, but feel that is a tolerable thing to do. The police cannot go to everybody’s home to find out whether they are breaking the rule of six, but they can enforce turning out the pubs. It might be worse for people to drink at home than to drink in the pub, so rules have their limitations. Let us get more buy-in by persuasion. That is our job as politicians.

Debbie Abrahams: I would like to make the following points based on my 20 years’ experience as a former public health consultant.
Unfortunately, I do not believe that the new tier system and measures that were introduced yesterday are sufficient to contain the virus. The localised approach will not work because of seeding. The virus travels where people come from. I came down on the train yesterday—I talked to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) about this point—and there might have been people who were asymptomatic who unknowingly have spread the virus, unfortunately. There may also have been people who wanted to exercise their personal choice, who have the virus and knowingly exposed people to that risk. Unless the Government are prepared to set up roadblocks across the M1, M6, M62 and all other routes to and from the north, I am afraid that, just as happened in the first wave in Italy, the virus will spread.
To understand what we need to do now, we must understand how we got to this position. It is abundantly clear, as has already been said, that the national test and trace programme is not fit for purpose. In spite of clear WHO guidance, it was not fully operational in June when the first lockdown measures were eased, and as a consequence it has failed to cope with the predicted rise in infections ever since. On top of that there were, unfortunately, significant specific failures.
I support the calls of the CMO, SAGE and others for a short circuit break to help drive down infection rates, but that should be at the national level. Any circuit break period should be used to undertake the transfer of test and trace to local public health departments. That must be accompanied by full resource transfer. Currently, less than 10% of the money used by local authorities at a local level has been reimbursed by the Government. That is unjustifiable and unsustainable, and it must be resolved.
In addition, the circuit break should be used first to ensure that the NHS and social care are fully prepared. They must have adequate PPE. They must have flu vaccines. They must have regular testing regimes. We should identify vulnerable people for supportive shielding, and not via some algorithm. We need to define exactly how we are going to support people in a way that does not mean they will be detrimentally isolated. We must also make sure we have simple, coherent messaging with local community engagement, and I support what the Government are trying to do with the simplification. We must also make sure that we have monitoring and enforcement capacity.
All workers and businesses need to be fully supported during any circuit break. We are at war with the virus. The Treasury needs to recognise that and respond adequately. Finally, the Government must recognise that covid is a disease of poverty.

Luke Evans: I take this opportunity to thank all those in my constituency who followed the rules when Leicestershire was being threatened with a lockdown. Through their dedication and their following of the rules, we have managed to avoid it for now.
During that threat of lockdown, one of the key messages I brought to this House was the importance of making sure that two key messages get through: where the affected area is and the measures that come into place. I am therefore pleased to hear today that we have a simplification and a tier-based system that will allow our constituents to understand the measures in place. With a postcode checker as well, it is even better. That was built, and I fed into the review led by Dame Mary Ney. She has produced a document on good practice for areas going into lockdown. I suggest that Members have a look at that document, because they can hold the Government to account by the very nature of what is written in it.
I was pleased to hear yesterday—it was repeated again today—that the Government acknowledge the difficulties of balancing health and the economy. It is a simple temptation to say, “Let’s just do it by generations and protect the shielded”, but the evidence shows that we cannot do that. Generational spread does happen, and that is when the threat comes to our elderly and our shielded.
What has happened this time is that we have a more nuanced response from the Government, and I welcome that. It is good medicine to change as things progress, but I want to focus on the future. I have some short-term suggestions for the Government, such as making sure we are clear with our signage about indicative dates, changes and accountability. We need to be clear about the principles behind the decisions we take, so that when someone asks, “Why can’t I sing?”, they can be told,  “Well, singing transmits the virus four times further.” When those principles are clear, it becomes obvious how to interpret the guidelines.
We want certainty for sectors, whether that is the wedding industry, events, the aerospace industry or the travel industry. They need certainty on exactly what will happen for them with guided points. They welcome timetables and they understand if things move, but a clear direction at least is important.
I welcome the aim for a vaccine, but until we get there I agree that a plan B would be useful. We have talked about near patient testing, and I have raised those questions in this House. Could it be that, in the future, before we come to speak in the Chamber, we have 20-minute saliva test—it is bound to be negative—and then come in and carry on with our day-to-day life? Until we get there, I urge the Government to read the Health and Social Care Committee’s recommendations on dealing with non-covid sites. At the end of the day, experience teaches us to help those who cannot and to empower those who can. That should be the message that the Government take forward.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Madam Deputy Speaker,
“I am not confident, and nor is anybody confident, that the tier 3 proposals for the highest rates…would be enough to get on top of it.”
Those were the words last night of the chief medical officer, but sadly the Government knew this in September, when SAGE scientists advised the immediate introduction of a list of measures including a circuit breaker. In the following days, the Prime Minister went ahead with only the work-from-home U-turn and the 10 pm curfew. Now we know the truth. Last night, we saw that the SAGE minutes clearly stated that the curfew measure was likely to have a marginal impact, as it also seems the Government’s tiered approach will do.
Further, after the initial lockdown, any semblance of economic normality that would have kept the public safe was predicated on a comprehensive test, track and trace system, but with people still making vast round trips to get a test and risking their details being lost in an Excel spreadsheet never to be seen again, it is clear that we do not have a comprehensive testing system. And how can we forget Operation Moonshot? Salford was to be one of the pilot areas testing the Moonshot programme. However, my local council confirmed to me this morning that, some time ago now, it asked the Department of Health and Social Care to share the clinical validity data behind this new technology. To date, that query remains unanswered, and until this morning Salford City Council had been told to pause the programme. So can the Secretary confirm his current plans for the development of mass testing?
We all know what needs to be done. Any resumption of normal life depends on bringing the infection rate down, followed by robust test, trace and isolate systems, but for this to happen, we need clear direction from Government, and our businesses and workers need economic support to do what is required of them. So far, the Chancellor’s support still does not extend to the more than 3 million people who are excluded, and the watering down of economic support means that, even under tier 2, many businesses and workers across Greater Manchester will see a significant drop in income that  they will not be able to sustain. So it seems we have a choice here: either we do not follow the science and instead impose the misery of prolonged tier 2 and tier 3 restrictions in many areas with little economic support, and cases and deaths will rise; or we follow the science and bring down transmission with a short national circuit breaker and a reform to test, track, trace and isolate. Frankly, the pandemic strategy so far has been akin to throwing a glass of water on a chip pan fire, and the Government need to change course today.

Karen Bradley: I have three quick points. First, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcements on the tier system and, in particular, the granularity that has been allowed. In my neighbouring borough of High Peak, we are seeing ward-based restrictions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) for his work on ensuring that that happens. I urge that there should be more granularity in what we do, led by local health professionals.
On the matter of hospitality, this is where I have to declare an interest. My family has run a pub for 53 years, from my grandfather to my father and now my brother, and they have never faced anything like this in all that time. I recognise why my right hon. Friend is doing what he is doing, and I agree with him that schools and workplaces have to be our priority, but we also have to think about the businesses that have spent thousands on making themselves covid-ready and now face a very uncertain future. Shift workers and those who work in hospitality are now completely excluded from any socialising with their friends, because the bars are simply not open at the time when they can go and enjoy themselves.
Also, people do not understand why there are differences around the country. Why is Wales allowing a drinking-up time? Why does Northern Ireland have an 11 o’clock closing time? I say to my right hon. Friend that I will support the Government’s measures today, but please can we look at having some more flexibility? I would be very happy to talk to him about some of the suggestions that my brothers have put to me during this debate, including on off-licence sales, drinking-up time and perhaps more flexibility on Friday and Saturday nights, which are the lifeblood of hospitality industries around the country, particularly in areas outside the big cities.
My final point is about this place, which is leading the way. We are sitting here in a socially distanced way. We are the most visible workplace in the country and we are abiding fully by the rules. However, if we have a Division this evening, we are putting ourselves at risk, and we are putting the staff of the House at risk. As the Clerk said in evidence to the Procedure Committee yesterday, if we do not have enough security staff able to come into this place, we cannot open. I want to see this place open. I want to see us scrutinising what the Government are doing and to be able to have these debates. We will be able to do that a lot better and a lot more safely if we vote in a safe way, and that means allowing the House to make a decision about whether we return to remote voting.

John Spellar: There is a huge principle to be debated here. At the heart of it is the false dichotomy posed again by the Secretary of State today  between hospitality and the economy and jobs, as though hospitality were not part of the real economy and millions of jobs did not depend on it. Tell that to the workers and businesses owners in pubs and clubs, restaurants and cafes, hotels and wedding venues, theatres and cinemas, betting shops, bingo halls and casinos and gyms, all of which are facing really hard times and challenges. They are facing closures, ruin and job losses on a massive scale. At the same time, as we heard earlier, Treasury support is weakening and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not only losing the cost of support but suffering a major loss of revenue.
Unfortunately, the approach seems to be driven less by deep analysis and more by the dreaded doctrine of “something must be done”. This is something; therefore we must do this irrespective of proportionality, outcome or impact. But this time it is even worse. It seems to be “something needs to be seen to be done” without any cost-benefit analysis or considering the impact on a beleaguered industry and a workforce facing mass redundancies. Accordingly, I and many other Members are unclear about the basis, either at a local or national level, of these proposals. The Chief Secretary talked earlier of anecdotes. I want a bit more than anecdotes.
Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester City Council, rightly said on Radio 4 today that a far better way than closures and curfews is to give powers to local councils to take rapid action to shut down non-compliant venues. In my authority of Sandwell, which has an enviable contact rate of 85% led by the excellent public health director Dr McNally, we have had one case linked to a hospitality venue, and that was early on in the pandemic in a pub in Smethwick. The Express & Star, our evening newspaper, investigated and found that across the Black Country, which is home to 1.25 million people, there have been just 10 such incidences of covid, again all early in the pandemic.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State did not give an indication of how long he thinks this can go on. It could last almost indefinitely unless we develop a vaccine, an event that, as the Prime Minister candidly admitted yesterday, is uncertain and would not be 100% effective. One of the tests of an exit strategy is considering how we contain the virus if we are not able to eliminate it, as we have had to do with major diseases throughout history and as many of parts of the world still have to do today.

Graham Brady: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) who closed on a critical point.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the good faith that is being shown today in fulfilling the promises given before about bringing these matters to the House. I hope that the same will be done in future if there are to be any measures to move areas between tiers in the three-tier system.
We all recognise that the Government have a difficult and unenviable balance to strike. We want to ensure the most effective response to the virus, while preserving vital treatment for other illnesses, such as cancer, and maintaining as far as possible normal family and social life as well as jobs and livelihoods.
In this context, I would argue that we need to work with the public, encouraging people to take sensible precautionsfor themselves. We all know the principal steps that need to be taken. We know that hand hygiene and distancing are key to protecting ourselves and others. We should encourage people to take that responsibility on themselves more and more. There should always be a presumption in doing so that we should protect as much of people’s freedom as possible. There are some simple steps that can mitigate some of the worst effects of these measures. Exempting young childrenfrom the rule of six is one that has been taken in other parts of the United Kingdom. Getting rid of the 10 pm curfew, or softening it, as others have suggested, is another. Introducing testing at airports to mitigate the hugely damaging quarantine arrangements is another, and I hope that we will see some movement on that in the next few weeks.
I make no bones about it: I would go further. As I said last week in the House, in my view, it is wrong to use public health legislation designed to control infected people to direct the lives of an entire population. But most immediately, I am concerned for my constituents in Greater Manchester, who have been in extra restrictions since late July. They were lifted for 12 hours, as my right hon. Friend theSecretary of Stateremembers very well, and I remember the tears that I heard cried by constituents when those restrictions were restored. In tier 2,we can at least meet friends and family outdoors, but after two and a half monthsof controls, we must be told how and when the restrictions will be lifted. This half-alive statethat we have come to inhabit cannot be allowed to become permanent.

Steven Baker: I begin, I am afraid, by declaringmy registered interest in Glint Pay, for reasons which will become apparent.
The problem with today’s statutory instruments is that they implement a strategy to suppress the virus until a vaccine has been found. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tweeted:
“Our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting education, the economy and the NHS until a vaccine can keep us safe.”
That runs into three problems. The first is that a vaccine may not come. The second is that a vaccine may not be effective. The third is that all this is propped up on quantitative easingand ultra-cheap credit. Indeed, now we are reading in the newspapers about negative interest rates, and this is why I declared the interest. I think you have to have a peculiarlyhigh level of economic education to believe that we can head towards £745 billion of QE and ultra-low or negative interest ratesand that all this will not be a problem. I will not say any more about it. I think it will be a problem, and it is precarious indeed that the Government’s strategy is propped up on such a monetary policy.
Only yesterday, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by when he expected to have vaccinated the vulnerable population. Of course he was good enough to reply that he could not give me a date and made reference to SARS, which took place 18 years ago and for which we still do not have a vaccine. I was grateful to him for his honesty.
Personally, I think that privately the Government are a little more optimistic about the AstraZeneca vaccine, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned,  but here is the thing: even suppose the Government had vaccinated the public with a successful, safe vaccine by Easter or possibly the summer, that still leaves our economy and Government spending propped up on ultra-cheap credit. The problem with that is that the Bank of England has told us on the Treasury Committee that if inflation comes in it will have to, under its mandate, fight inflation. That would effectively mean pulling the plugon Government spending. This is precarious indeed.
I turn in the last few seconds to the Great Barrington declaration. No one can deny that it is well motivated. Indeed, it says:
“Keeping these measures”—
lockdown policies around the world—
“in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.”
I have been looking closely at the critiques of the declaration. Professor JamesNaismithof the University of Oxford wrote:
“Humility and willingness to consider alternatives are hallmarks of good science.”
For the reasons that I have given, I am convinced that the Government must find an alternative strategic plan between the Great Barrington declaration and where we are today.

Mark Harper: I have heard one or two people say that the Government do not have a plan, but I do not agree with that. I think the Government have a good plan, which they set out in May. I read it at the time and thought it was very sound. My problem is that the Government often do not seem to remember that they have a plan and do not always follow through on some of the things in it, for example, the risks of a vaccine, which my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) reminded us about. The Prime Minister said in the foreword to the plan:
“It is clear that the only feasible long-term solution lies with a vaccine or drug-based treatment.”
But he was frank enough to say that
“while we hope for a breakthrough, hope is not a plan. A mass vaccine or treatment may be more than a year away.”
The best evidence, even now, is that that year, which would take us to next May or so, is about the best-case scenario for being able to vaccinate older members of the community if all goes well, so it is clear that we have to do other things.
The first phase of the Government’s plan was the lockdown, to drive down the virus to a very low level. The second phase was to introduce smarter controls, for example, covid-safe workplaces in hospitality venues, combined with an effective testing and tracing system. I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, looking at the evidence at the moment, that the second most important piece of that, according to the Government’s plan, was the following:
“local authority public health services to bring a valuable local dimension to testing, contact tracing and support to people who need to self-isolate”.
I welcome the extra support given to the local public health teams in the high-risk areas that the Government have set out, but I would argue that it should go further and extend across the country. The importance of that is seen if we look at the data, which shows we are reaching only about 74% of those who test positive to get their  contact information. We are reaching only 68.6% of those contacts in total, according to the latest data, which is the lowest percentage. That means that overall we are reaching only about half of the contacts of people who test positive.

Munira Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the data also shows that the tracing rates for local authority or regional public health teams are somewhere between 90% and 100%, whereas the central contact tracing percentage is only somewhere in the 60s? That is more evidence that we should be running this locally.

Mark Harper: I do think there is some evidence to show that local teams are better. I work closely with my local director of public health in Gloucestershire—I am sure every Member of the House does with theirs—the fantastic Sarah Scott, who has recently been promoted to a wider brief, and her team. I would have real confidence that if she were given the resources, she and her team would do a fantastic job of tracing contacts quickly, getting to them, working with them to explain why isolating was important and perhaps being able to work with them to identify some of the barriers that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned, might stop them isolating. If we were to do that and be much more effective, that would enable us not only to live with this virus, but to live meaningful lives where people could have more social contact; they could have more ability to have those important contacts—the Secretary of State acknowledged they were important. That was in the Government’s original plan and they should lean into it. The Government have a strategy and they need to go back to that original strategy to look at the areas that are not being executed as well as they could be. I said in my intervention that I give credit to the Test and Trace team for massively expanding testing, but the testing is not an end; it is a means to an end: to identify the virus, isolate areas where we need to put in further measures and encourage people to isolate. If we do that, we will be successful and the country will thank us for it.

Daisy Cooper: If we are to have any hope of getting a grip on this virus, reopening our economy and restoring our freedoms, it all depends on fixing test, trace and isolate, and on giving control of that system to directors of public health. As I understand it, local directors of public health can make proposals on how to tackle the virus in their area only under tier 3. Can the Government confirm today that, if local authorities make proposals on how to use extra delegated powers and their local knowledge to keep the virus under control in their areas, they will work with them to enable this to happen, even when those areas are just in tiers 1 and 2?
We also need to see proper financial support for those businesses that are being asked to close, so that they can both survive and recover. This is no small threat. Almost 25% of hospitality businesses think they will fail in the next three months. We understand the need for public health measures, but they must come with a proper package of support. Many in hospitality are worried that the restrictions on households mixing in tiers 2 and 3, and on alcohol to be served only with a meal, might make businesses commercially unviable, and they will  need to close even if they have not explicitly been told to do so. In those circumstances, will the Government make the extended job support scheme available to those companies? If local authorities decide to close all pubs in addition to tier 3 measures, do those who are forced to close have access to the Government’s central extended support scheme, and do suppliers to those businesses that have had to close, but are not technically forced to close themselves, have recourse to the extended job support scheme as well?
Then there is the curfew. We have seen crowds of people in close contact turfed out onto streets, onto public transport, into off-licences and into homes where they cannot be policed. The facts are well rehearsed. SAGE members were not consulted. The Government did no assessment of the cost to business. The Campaign for Real Ale and UKHospitality asked for the evidence, but got nothing. The curfew is now subject to a judicial review, because the Government have failed to provide any evidence. Yesterday evening, at a briefing for MPs, the Government’s medical advisers admitted that the curfew was a policy decision, not a scientific one. Overnight, SAGE’s minutes observed that the curfew would have a marginal impact.

Craig Whittaker: On that point, I used to be a landlord many years ago, in the days when we kicked people out at 10 o’clock on a Sunday and 11 o’clock the rest of the week. Is the reality not that it is up to people to take responsibility for their own safety and that this is not just about a policy?

Daisy Cooper: The idea that a Government can change a policy without having implications for public behaviour is absurd. That is why the behavioural science group exists to advise SAGE and has advised the Government on this point. What is worse is that we knew that the Government were advised to close everything down for two weeks and they did not, suggesting that the curfew was just a feeble attempt to look as though they were trying to do something. The Government are so desperate not to accept that they got it wrong, or to suffer a defeat, that even if the House votes down the curfew in the seventh vote tonight, it has already been incorporated into the package of measures in the first three votes, which will introduce the three tiers from tomorrow. The Government have provided no opportunity for Opposition MPs to amend them so that we can improve public health and outcomes for businesses. The Government had the opportunity to persuade the public and Opposition MPs with clear evidence, but they have squandered that, choosing instead coercion and control. It is outrageous that local government leaders, business leaders and Members of this House have had to fight tooth and nail for weeks to see the evidence behind Government measures that are threatening lives and livelihoods in our communities. It is an outrageous abuse of power and it must stop. There is a sickness of secrecy at the heart of this Government, and it can be cured only by some radical transparency.

Craig Whittaker: I will say at the start that, as a Conservative, imposing state control over people’s lives makes me feel incredibly uncomfortable and puts me well outside my personal comfort zone.
Back in August, when the whole of Calderdale was put under local restrictions, we got additional support from the Government in several forms. One form of support was an additional tier on the national track and trace system. That has been a valuable tool to give the local authority real evidence of where the spikes are coming from. As a result of that, we traced around 90% of contacts.
As I said, I have a problem with state control over people’s lives, but—and there is a “but”—what we have seen locally during local restrictions is that, although the majority of people adhere to the law and guidance, which is worth repeating, sadly, a significant number do not. Unfortunately, the actions of a significant few are putting everybody else at risk, and the current spike is staggering. It is the result of a significant minority who are taking the liberty of living their daily lives as they choose, and they are putting everybody else at risk.These are some of the things that are happening locally, some of which are evident from our track and trace system: people not self-isolating when they are unwell; people not self-isolating when they return from holiday; and people not self-isolating when they have been in contact with someone else who has tested positive. It is not advised to mix households in pubs and restaurants; however, because that has been guidance only, our local pubs and restaurants have been full of mixed households seated together. That is not evidence from track and trace, but from the local MP, in the pub for most of the weekend. Finally, households are still mixing, despite it being law that they cannot.
There are many reasons why people have not adhered to the law or guidance, but the reality is that when a significant few ignore Government advice and take decisions about the pandemic into their own hands, they put the majority at huge risk. This is by no means a criticism of our local police and local authority, but they have taken the decision to have a light-touch approach to enforcement of local restrictions. I have supported that, but we are again at a cliff edge with the virus locally, and that light-touch approach, where people are not penalised for taking their own decisions, is being abused by a significant number of people.
I have lots of stats about what is happening locally, but basically we have had 800 positive cases in the last two weeks. We now have 43 people in hospital and six people in ICUs, and we have had 12 deaths since 1 October. It is for that reason—that is, the evidence—that I support the Government 100% on implementing the tiered system, because we really need to get the virus back under control.

Nadia Whittome: A week ago, Nottingham showed for the first time a dramatic increase in our covid-19 infection rate. We needed immediate action from the Government, but instead all we got was confusion and delay. We were left in the dark for a week, with no action and no communication from the Government, and during that time the infection rate doubled to be the highest in the country. The saddest thing about that is that it was avoidable.
The Government have failed us time and again during this crisis. They failed to protect elderly people and vulnerable people, who died at an alarming rate in care homes and nursing homes. They failed to implement a test and trace system and they failed to listen to the  OECD’s advice that the best way to protect the economy was to prevent a second wave, instead telling people one minute to go out to pubs, to eat out to help out, and then blaming them for doing so the next. The Government prioritised the interests of the economy over saving lives, yet failed to do both, and we are now faced with the worst recession in the developed world.
Last week, MPs, councillors and members of the public were left to find out in the press that we were due to go under a local lockdown, without any details of what that would look like for residents and for businesses. People in Nottingham have made enormous sacrifices during this pandemic, but frankly people are fed up. People want the Government to do their part. That means a serious economic package to protect jobs and businesses, and fixing the privatised Serco test and trace system. Are the Government so wedded to privatisation that even when it is utterly failing and public health is at risk they just plough on? We also need to extend the eviction ban so that no one loses their home during this time.
We know that lockdowns work only if people can afford to self-isolate, so why is it that, eight months into this virus, statutory sick pay is still £95 a week? The Secretary of State said that he could not live on that, so why are my constituents expected to? My final question to the Minister, in the last few seconds, is why have the Government not even followed their own scientific advice, which was to ban households mixing, close pubs and bring all university teaching online? How many people have to die before the Government get a grip of this virus?

Nigel Evans: If hon. Members are on the call list between number 25 and 35, they really should be in the Chamber now, please.

Stephen Hammond: I welcome the opportunity to make a short number of points to the Government about these statutory instruments. First, I welcome the fact that they have set out with clarity and granularity how the system will work, and that we have the chance to debate these measures today. As the Prime Minister said last night, the evidence behind some of the statutory instruments is, at best, imperfect, and I am particularly concerned about the evidence for the 10 o’clock curfew. That curfew may or may not be necessary, but in my constituency, many people are leaving the hospitality sector at 10 o’clock and going to local shops to buy alcohol. They are moving from a covid-secure environment, usually to a less covid-secure environment. If the Minister wants to make the case that SI 2020 No. 1029 is necessary, I suggest that he introduces a statutory instrument that allows for local restrictions on the purchase time for alcohol.
I welcome the fact that the restrictions are time limited in a number of cases, and I accept that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments will need to make quick decisions. Why is the proposed expiry date for a number of these statutory instruments not three months but six months? If there is any indication that we need to increase that period, will the House get to debate that? Will there be a 28-day review in the House of all the statutory instruments?
The Prime Minister was absolutely right last night when he said that we need to build consensus, and the Minister will not be surprised to hear that, as a south  London MP, I am particularly concerned about a London-wide lockdown, which would impact 9 million people. All restrictions must be applied proportionately. Merton, which includes Wimbledon, has one of the lowest infection rates in London, but many boroughs in different parts of London are affected. At what level would a London restriction be applied, and will it be agreed by borough leaders and not just the Mayor? Will the Minister confirm that for London, like the rest of the country, restrictions will be on a borough-by-borough, ward-by-ward basis? It is difficult to see the rationale for a London-wide imposition of new restrictions.

Angela Eagle: I believe that the Government should have brought all these measures to Parliament from the beginning, and it should not have taken a revolt on the Tory Back Benches for us to debate these statutory instruments. Why? Because through debates in Parliament we can persuade the public that the Government are making the right decisions, and we can challenge the Government and make them explain why they are making certain decisions.
From the beginning of the pandemic there was widespread support for what the Government were doing, but since Dominic Cummings’ trip to Durham, where his rule breaking was met with impunity by the Prime Minister, we have seen an increase in confusion and the rules get more complex. We have also seen people’s good will turn into cynicism. The advice over the summer about eating out to help out, or people being told to go back to work, then to work from home and not go out or even go to the pub, caused confusion and ill will. That is making it much harder to persuade our constituents that this is what they should be doing, and that the Government have a plan. We need transparency and honesty, and to be able to trust what the Government are doing.
Yesterday, my local authority was put into tier 3. We know that the Government have decided to keep universities and workplaces open, against the advice of SAGE. That leaves them with only socialising to try to press down on the virus. All they can do is restrict socialising in private or public. Given that there were 41 deaths in the past week in the north-west, I understand the need to do it, but we cannot just have local lockdowns on the cheap. The current furlough-lite is just not a good enough system to ensure that hospitality and jobs are properly protected, and 67% of wages is just not enough. We are abandoning many hundreds of thousands of jobs and many fantastic businesses in hospitality and entertainment to go to the wall without support.
I want to support the Government, but the Government also need to share their thinking and be much more transparent and open about the scientific advice and what works. They also need to be far more generous, especially in tier 3 areas, with the support they are willing to put in to keep local economies, local jobs and local businesses alive, so that we can all fight to get this virus down.

Jim Shannon: I am very happy to speak in this debate. This pandemic is devastating to so many: those who have lost loved ones, those who live in fear of leaving the house, those serving in the NHS,  frontline workers, those worried that their jobs are to be lost, those worried that they will not get medical treatment quickly enough or those who do not seek it for fear they may have to go to the hospital, parents of children who should be doing exams this year and are beyond stressed, teachers who know the need to educate children but are concerned for safety—I cannot think of any group of people in the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland who are not affected by this in some way.
I think of a lady I know, who attends and looks after children and babies at the Ards Elim Church, and who has had devastating news. As we know, the hospitals and so on closed down to testing in Ards, particularly for those with cancer; the papers today referred to 3 million people waiting for appointments and assessments. This lady, unfortunately, has had devastating news of advanced cancer, so I am conscious that it is for that generation of hard-working, straight-talking, Queen-and-country-loving, God-honouring prayer women that I support the Prime Minister, the Minister and the Government in what they are trying to do and in their attempts to keep as many things running as possible.
I am conscious of those waiting for a CAT scan or MRI scan and of those with normal—if normal is the right word—health issues who are waiting for treatment. I also think of those with Alzheimer’s; the Alzheimer’s Society has sent me some figures showing that one in four of all coronavirus deaths between March and June were people with dementia. It also referred to the 92 million extra hours spent by family and friends, and the diagnosis rates in August 2020 that fell below the 66.7% target—it was nowhere near reached.
Perhaps when the Minister sums up the debate he can give me some succour in relation to cancer rates and Alzheimer’s. The Alzheimer’s Society has also said it would like to see nominated visitors to care homes classified as key workers, so that they can get help with PPE and infection control. Those may seem like difficult tasks, but the fact is that it is not enough just to keep people alive. The quality of that life must also be essential.
Turning very quickly to Northern Ireland, we have one of the highest rates in Europe in Strabane, but we also have some incredibly low rates of community transition in my own area of Strangford. That shows the difference there can be in a small region such as Northern Ireland, and it shows how we must be localised in how we respond to these things. I conclude by saying this: we must press on in education, press on with hospital appointments and press on with business. We must press on in a new way—the safest way possible for everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with space and respect for all—but we must still press on.

Andrea Jenkyns: Almost 43,000 people have died through covid in the UK since the start of the pandemic. Those are not just numbers not grounded in reality; each number, each curve and each graph represents real people. Many have fallen ill and many have died due to the virus. They are our neighbours, our friends, our colleagues and our families. They died, in many cases, without seeing their children, saying goodbye for the last time in an ambulance. Our  Prime Minister too was in hospital, while his partner was pregnant, and suffered a great deal because of the virus. Thankfully he pulled through and is fighting fit and doing his utmost to protect our people, but no one is immune to this virus.
The Government have the incredibly complex task of saving lives without compromising livelihoods. The economic measures put in place by the Chancellor to that extent have been among the most generous in Europe. These regulations are consistent with the Government’s strategy to defeat covid-19 and manage the demands on the NHS. I believe the Government are working hard to take that balanced approach, taking into account public health issues, broader health and wellbeing, and the economic and social considerations. Unfortunately, we have seen infection cases rising rapidly across the country, and the number of patients admitted into intensive care units in hospitals has increased. This is exactly the situation we must avoid. The Government’s job is to do what is best for the people, and to save lives while protecting the economy. One thing is for sure, however: no one wants to see the number of deaths and hospitalisations that we saw earlier this year.
My own area of Morley and Outwood, along with the rest of West Yorkshire, has been placed on high alert level at this stage. Such is the great variation of infections between the regions, there have been different rules in different parts of the country. This is the best way to keep our economy going without shutting down our entire nation. Today’s three-tier system ensures a collaborative approach between central Government and local communities. The Government are not simply introducing restrictions without the necessary support. I welcome the Chancellor’s further actions to protect jobs and to support businesses whose premises have been legally required to shut. The Government are taking the necessary responsibility to support the economy through this public health crisis.
As Conservatives, we suffer by instinct from the imposition of restrictions—I personally do—but we would not do it unless it was extremely necessary to safeguard lives. During lockdown, I had many conversations with care homes, businesses and constituents in Morley and Outwood. They all agreed that it was possible to keep the virus under control while keeping the economy going. I believe there is broad consensus in this House and in my constituency that the health of our fellow citizens is paramount. It is time for us, across the House, to pull together, across the country with local leaders, to put the health crisis first and avoid all party politics.

Mike Hill: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns). She makes a valid point that this is a public health crisis.
Over a week ago, my constituency of Hartlepool was placed under lockdown. It is currently in tier 2 of the new measures. Yes, it was requested by the local authority that such action be taken, but not in the guise in which it formed itself in the current measures. Lockdown was imposed on Hartlepool via a Government press release. Yesterday morning at 9 am, there was a hastily arranged conference call, hosted by a Minister, with all north-east leaders, yet Hartlepool, together with other authorities  in the Tees valley, was left off the phone call. On behalf of my council, I would like the Minister to answer why they were not included in a phone call on the new measures in the north-east of England. If that was a mistake, has it been rectified or when will it be rectified? Consultation with my local authority has so far been woeful.
Turning to the public health issues, now that the whole of the Tees valley is under tier 2 we can hopefully work together and set party politics aside for the public good. Collectively, our local authorities face important challenges and they deserve to have appropriate resources allocated to them. In my council, it is estimated that £4.5 million is needed to provide extra support during lockdown. We desperately need to see a strategy developed by the Government for ending lockdown. Test and trace needs to be devolved, so that local environmental health teams, who know the patch and have the knowledge, can provide a more effective service. We need much more to assist us to get through tier 2. It is a public health crisis. I urge the Government to improve their communications and to answer the question I put earlier.

Nigel Evans: If you are on the call list between No. 40 and No. 70 and you no longer want to participate in the debate, please make sure that the message comes through to the Chair.

Simon Baynes: I believe that the measures proposed by the Government are reasonable and proportionate to slow the spread of the virus while balancing this against civil liberties. In particular, I believe that the 10 pm closing time is appropriate as part of the package of measures designed to strike that balance, and that the data and evidence, as outlined by the Secretary of State, show that it is actually proving effective in curbing the spread of the virus. It is of course a compromise, but one that allows the hospitality industry to remain open for business while including restrictions to curb the virus in the areas of greatest risk. It is also important to remember that all these measures are kept under constant review and seek to respond to the latest data about which steps are most effective in curbing the spread of the virus. I am much encouraged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s recent announcements of increased financial support for sectors such as the hospitality industry that are most affected by the restrictions.
I speak in this debate as the MP for a Welsh constituency, Clwyd South, which borders England, and therefore the decisions taken in Wales are the responsibility of the Welsh Government. I strongly support the Westminster Government’s introduction of a new three-tier system that is much more targeted than the Welsh Government’s current local lockdown by county. Currently, 80% of Wales is under local lockdown. I very much hope that the Welsh Government will follow the Secretary of State’s more targeted approach, as outlined in this debate, particularly with regard to the district-by-district approach in areas such as High Peak. That is what we need in Wales. Having witnessed the blanket approach in Wales, which in my constituency does not distinguish between different areas of infection within counties, nor between different levels of infection, I strongly support the Secretary of State’s graduated and sustainable three-tier approach.
I fully support the Government’s measures before the House today, which are proportionate, balanced and represent a collective approach to ensuring that we do our very best to protect others in the fight against coronavirus.

Naseem Shah: My constituency has been under what are now known as tier 2 restrictions for 75 days. Yesterday evening, public health authorities and the local authority were told that we should now enter into talks to consider going into the highest tier. That quite shocked me, because it was not what I was told in the calls with the Secretary of State yesterday or in any other calls. It has also come as a surprise to people in Bradford.
Just as other Members have made cases for their constituencies, I will be no different in making the case for mine. Bradford West is a special case in that in 2017-18 child poverty was at 50.9% when we take into account children’s deprivation and housing costs. We have the seventh highest rates of unemployment in the country. Under the current support package, minimum wage workers on £8.72 will have to pay rent and live off £5.84 if the businesses they work for are forced to close. Those excluded from any financial support from the Government during the pandemic face another £20 cut in their universal credit claims as the Government drive on with their roll-back of vital support.
I ask the Minister directly: how does he expect people to survive in a constituency such as Bradford West, which has rising rates of child deprivation and is currently under additional restrictions, if their places of work were to close? Do not he and the Government see how the lack of adequate support alongside these restrictions will, rather than preventing a rise in child poverty, lead to an increase in child poverty in constituencies such as mine? If these measures are to be effective, the support needs to be adequate. I therefore ask him to speak to the Chancellor and consider additional funding support for constituencies such as mine. I know this Government may not have the political will to try to reduce child deprivation in constituencies such as mine, but I sincerely hope that they have the moral will to do so.
When history judges how we responded to this pandemic, social media has plenty of memes that give really good outlines of what the Government’s U-turns have been—from “whack-a-mole” to “world-beating” and all these “moonshot” theories. But actually the real test will be: how will our next generation make their way? Will their education be right? Will they be the next generation of poverty, even after 10 years of austerity and 10 years of this Government? What will life look like for my children and the children beyond? That will be the real test, so that is the responsibility the Government need to step up to today.

Craig Mackinlay: Lockdowns do work if the desire is merely to flatten the curve, flatten the sombrero, reduce the R number, and covid is the only thing in town. But of course it is not the only thing in town. That ignores the corollary effects on other health issues, wellbeing and, of course, the economy.
The benefit of what the Government are proposing today, with tiers 1, 2 and 3—medium, high and very high—has the benefit of clarity, which I think has been  lacking thus far. But I do have concerns and I would like clarity from the Minister before the end of today’s debate as to how he proposes to move areas in the future, as necessary, between the different tiers. My reading of the SIs is that that can be done without recourse back to Parliament. Areas can be moved between 2 and 3 or vice versa with no negative or affirmative procedure in this House. The worry has to be that there is an ability to recreate a national lockdown in piecemeal fashion, so I certainly hope the Minister will be able to answer that.
I have the same concerns this week as I did last week—raised by many hon. and right hon. Members—about the rule of six, and I was a Teller last week against that SI. There seems to be very little rationale today and there was none last week. If six is the magic golden number, surely four has got to be better and, if not, why not 10? Let us discuss that. I was particularly taken by the speech—he is not in his place—of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who made the very reasonable point that a mother and a newborn, never detached from each other, under these counting units count as a two. That has to be patently absurd when, under any reasonable measure, they have to be counted as a one, and that absurdity would continue into any close living family unit.
My real concern is, of course, about the 10 pm curfew. Just considering this great city of London, the restaurants close, the pubs close, there is no takeaway available at 10 o’clock, and guess what? The first train out of London or the next tube at 10.10 is going to be rocker-chocker solid—mixing and mingling with people at close proximity. For great clarity of any Whips listening to this debate, I will be voting against the, albeit superseded, negative procedure SI on the 10 pm curfew, which is in motion 9. I remain very concerned about the SI in motion 3 on the Order Paper about the lower level tier 1 —medium. Again, the 10 pm curfew has crept into all of these SIs and I see no rationale for it to be relevant for the lower level—the safer level. So I remain to be convinced, but I am currently concerned and may vote against.

Charlotte Nichols: Increasingly, it feels like the north is being treated as an afterthought, with decisions taken by people in Whitehall who could not even point to Warrington on a map. We had absolutely none of the promised engagement over the weekend with our local authority and there was a concerted push to make us subject to the tier 3 restrictions of the Liverpool city region, despite not being a part of those conversations or, indeed, of the Liverpool city region. It has been insulting to be invited to a meeting for a totally different county by the Department for Health, and to be told what restrictions we would be subject to only minutes before the Prime Minister made his announcement, when the details had all been leaked to The Times days earlier, causing huge anxiety locally.
The real irony, however, is that many of our local businesses would be better off if we had gone into tier 3, as the financial support for tier 2 is totally inadequate. Between the 10 pm curfew and the introduction of the ban on households mixing indoors, hospitality venues in Warrington lost up to 90% of their business in a  single week. No business could be expected to survive that indefinitely and the job support scheme does little to help, pushing families into poverty. Far from the Government’s stated aspiration of levelling up, we are being levelled down in the north-west by coronavirus and a Government who seem to think we should be grateful for the limited support we have had.
The worst part is hearing from constituents who have lost hope. The mental health impacts of all they have had to endure will be lasting and significant. As well as getting serious about financial support for our region to deal with the virus, we urgently need to see increased support to deal with the mental health crisis that we face. To give people hope, we need to have it explained what thresholds Warrington needs to meet to be moved out of tier 2 and into tier 1, with the rest of the country. With something to work towards, compliance will naturally increase, and it will give us back some of the control that we feel we have lost. We all want to do our bit, but the Government must do theirs. That means greater engagement, transparency and accountability and not a lockdown for the north on the cheap.

Nusrat Ghani: I am pleased to contribute to the debate. Many of us on the Back Benches fought for this opportunity to contribute, although I was hoping that we would have longer than three minutes. I do not doubt that Ministers are grappling with the most difficult trade-offs in managing the spread of the virus. In particular, I know that the Minister for Health bears a huge responsibility in trying to ensure the lowest possible number of covid fatalities.
I support the Government in their efforts to manage the virus and their three-tier system, but I have concerns similar to those of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay), and I want to raise three of them. First, the Prime Minister was brutally honest yesterday in telling my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) that a vaccine may or may not be available, depending on what science delivers. If that is the case, we need a long-term covid strategy that does not involve areas being put in and out of restrictive measure for many years to come, which will not only damage local economies but have a tragic impact on the diagnosis and treatment of other potentially fatal health conditions among my constituents in Wealden.
In particular, cancer comes to mind. The national health service has been called the national covid service by many of my constituents. I received an email from a local resident, Mike, who is trying to get a neurosurgery consultation appointment. He has been told that, for his condition, he has to wait 48 weeks, not the 26 weeks that it would have been in February. Amusingly—even though my residents in Wealden are struggling, they still have a sense of humour—he says that patients are asked to use their “fastest finger first” when ringing to try to get a same-day hospital appointment:
“Anyone without a swish redialling telephone and the persistence of Miss Marple has little chance of getting an appointment.”
That is the problem we face. Our efforts to protect the NHS and protect our constituents from getting covid are unfortunately leading to people being unable to manage their other health conditions.
Secondly, testing and tracing continues to be an issue in my care homes and schools, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to ensure that the turnaround time  for tests is much swifter than it is at the moment. The final point I wish to raise is about hospitality. It is clear that there is no scientific basis for the 10 pm curfew. The SAGE scientists say:
“Curfews likely to have a marginal impact. Low confidence.”
We are repeatedly told that this virus spreads indoors. A story in today’s Telegraph says that spending on alcohol is £261 million more than it was in September. That is no doubt because people are spending money on booze to drink at home, where the virus spreads much more. We need to be clear about the unintended consequences of the decisions we take.

Imran Ahmad Khan: In March, we adhered to lockdown measures to protect one another’s lives and prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. Evidence indicates that the virus is on the increase across the nation. The analysis of what that means, however, is contested, and I remain to be convinced that the imposition of further measures in Wakefield at this time is the right thing to do. The measures before the House, which seek to arrest the spread of covid-19, will cripple Wakefield’s economic recovery and sound the death knell for many businesses. There is no silver bullet, and without one, although it is difficult, we must learn to live with the virus. The continued peaks and troughs are unsustainable and offer false hope.
Last week I visited Ossett brewery, which employs close to 400 people in my constituency. Having spent tens of thousands of pounds on becoming a covid-secure business, the incomprehensible 10 pm curfew—at best grounded in questionable science—has left the business in jeopardy. This afternoon I received an email from the managing director, who said that the imposition of tier 2 measures would merit the brewery’s closure.
I have similar stories to tell from restaurateurs and businesses from across my constituency. My inbox is swamped with people asking me—imploring me—to help the Government to realise that their businesses will be damned. I have not received one letter or email asking me to commend the Government on their proposals.
Throughout the pandemic, the people of Wakefield behaved responsibly, adhering to the Government’s guidelines. When my constituency was marked as an area of concern, my constituents diligently followed social distancing advice and were rewarded. Wakefield now has a lower number of covid cases than neighbouring Kirklees and Calderdale—indeed, lower than the Chancellor’s constituency of Richmond, which has been categorised as tier 1. As a consequence of this new tier system, Wakefield will be unfairly characterised as tier 2, along with the rest of West Yorkshire. As Wakefield is placed in stricter measures—

Naseem Shah: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should thank local health officials, particularly the directors of public health such as in Bradford West, and that they have the real answers? That expertise is very local and this needs to be led locally, as opposed to nationally with “one size fits all” in cases such as his?

Imran Ahmad Khan: The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. Certainly, if we used a model such as Germany, that would be the case, but Germany has a strong federal system with the Länder while the United Kingdom  is far more centralised, so I do not think there is a fair comparison. It would be best if all our citizens co-operated entirely with test, track and trace, downloaded the app and used it, and behaved responsibly. In the end, with the covid virus, the human variable is key to limiting and controlling the disease. We have to get individuals to understand their responsibility and their key use in sorting this problem out themselves.
As I was saying, under this new tier system, Wakefield will be placed under stricter measures while other areas in West Yorkshire with a far higher incidence, such as the hon. Lady’s, will enjoy eased measures. Wakefield’s infection rate merits the disaggregation of the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council area from West Yorkshire and its placement in tier 1. The Secretary of State has already said that this is possible in High Peak and parts of North Yorkshire, so, if he would commit to so doing for Wakefield, I would reconsider and vote with the Government. Without such assurances, I fear these measures would, for Wakefield, be death by a thousand cuts. I could not look my constituents in the eye if I had voted for measures that broke them.

Karin Smyth: Bristol, in tier 1, has fortunately been able to maintain low transmissions, and hence admissions to hospital and, so far, deaths. We want it to stay that way. My experience of working in the local health system is that this is in large part due to good relationships that have been hard developed over many years, particularly through local resilience forums. There are good relationships with Public Health England and directors of public health. Working together is sustaining some very good work locally, but there is no room for complacency. We recognise that the economy—wealth creation—is crucial to good local health, and we need support from the Government for both those things.
In the short time available, I want to highlight issues around isolating, shielding, and test and trace. As well as reducing social contact, which the Secretary of State talked a lot about, the key to transmission reduction is isolating, but isolation support is woeful and for communities with little money, which face higher unemployment, the situation is worsened. We have to be much more honest about the incentives and the way they work to support people who are isolating. It is hard and the knock-on effects on families are substantial and disruptive. Again, we need local public health people who know their communities to help support those who are isolating. We need much more support for people who are shielding. People do not understand why it is now different from how it was back in March.
Across the House, we all know that the test and trace system is not working. It is causing chaos for the frontline, particularly care home managers and school leaders. There is a balancing act to be done here. Again, we need local support to inform those school leaders and care home managers about how to interpret the guidance. That cannot just be done through the algorithm. It is a disgrace that the test and trace system is not led by a civil servant whom we can hold to account. I do not know how we can hold the Baroness—I do not know whether the courtesies of the House allow me to name her—to account for the system. That must be changed. It is crucial that we can hold people to account.
I accept that the legislation was rushed through in March, and perhaps there was a reason for not using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 or the public health legislation we are debating today. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has scrutinised this, produced our report and we now need to move to a better way forward. We cannot keep dragging the Government here week after week to do our job, which is to agree to disagree, to scrutinise and to hold to account, based on our experience, the work we do in Committees and our work locally. It would improve the legislation. It would improve local trust, and ultimately that supports the front line and saves lives.

Emma Hardy: The Government must be under no illusion: the country’s patience and goodwill are wearing thin. People were promised that the lockdown pain would be worth it as they experienced friends, colleagues and family members lose businesses and be made redundant, separation from loved ones, the cancellation of hospital appointments, and children missing out on education. They were promised a world-beating track and trace system. They were promised that the Prime Minister had taken personal control. They were told that it would be all over by Christmas. After 204 days, we are back to square one: the fourth worst in the world for Covid cases.
I spoke last week to a pub landlord, who did not mince his words and had reached the end of his tether. He had three pubs: now he has only two. He has seen his costs increase and income fall. He says he did everything the Government asked of him: he shut for 13 weeks; he moved tables; he turned off music; he turned off sports commentaries; he moved drinks outside; he opened doors and windows; he asked people to sit down; he stopped more than six being in a group; he split up families and support bubbles; he told people not to shout; he banned singing; he banned dancing; he banned live music; he started wearing masks; he completed track and trace; he got sanitary stations; he had additional cleaning; he had table service; and now he has been told he must shut at 10 pm, which means last orders at 9.15 pm, because having been a barmaid I know that people need drinking-up time before they can be cleared out. That therefore means that business is being lost from 9.15 pm.
He does not understand it. The science is telling him that it does not have significant reasons for following it, and what we need from Government are evidence and clarity. He has been let down. He needs support for businesses, and not just for those in tier 3 but those right across the country. We need a commitment that there will be adequate notice for any of these changes.
It is ludicrous that people in tier 3 can order alcohol only if they have a “substantial meal”. What is a substantial meal? If they order a salad they cannot have a glass of wine, but anything with a pastry lid means they can have a pint. This is nonsense. We are treating the public like fools.
We need to improve communication. The Government must not underestimate how angry people are. People are losing faith in the Government, and that is dangerous.  Hull West and Hessle was already suffering because of a decade of austerity and of cuts—a decade of cuts that the Prime Minister seems to forget he voted for.
Our hospitality trade brings colour to our lives—those social moments that we enjoy; the times we are with friends and family and celebrate weddings, anniversaries and birthdays. Pubs help to bring the community together. This Government’s incompetence is killing them off, and they will not be forgiven.

Sam Tarry: I speak amid concerning news for our constituency: our borough, Redbridge, has the highest infection rate in London alongside Richmond upon Thames. Infection rates in the London borough of Redbridge have risen to more than 100 per 100,000, and in some of my Ilford South wards it is significantly higher.
I welcome the Government’s latest three-tier guidelines, but I feel that they need to go significantly further. Hundreds of my constituents have written over the past few days expressing concern that we have such a high rate. I have visited shops and businesses, speaking to people face to face in the appropriate socially distanced way. They are extremely concerned about the direction of travel.
The London director of Public Health England, Professor Fenton, has warned that coronavirus cases in London continue to rise, and we are seeing undeniable evidence of that trend. In fact, infection rates are rising across the country despite the partial and tight lockdown measures in many parts of the country. It is clear that the Government must now act more decisively than they have so far to stop any further escalation of infection rates in London. We must learn the lessons of other regions across the country that have had partial lockdowns and are still seeing rising infection rates. I am speaking to councillors in Oldham, which has witnessed soaring infection rates—above 205 to 327 per 100,000 in the space of just a week—despite being under tight lockdown measures since the end of August. The partial lockdown measures in regions such as Greater Manchester have clearly failed to curb infection rates, with Manchester’s infection rate rising by more than 100 to 543 per 100,000 just last week.
The current overall London lockdown infection rate remains at 100 per 100,000. That is why I believe it is now time for the Government to act urgently across London by implementing a circuit-breaker lockdown for at least two weeks to prevent London from suffering the fate of other major cities across the country and to halt the trend of rising infection rates across the city. I recognise that this needs to be hand in hand with further economic measures, because it is a more radical measure, but it must be done. I will not be able to look my constituents in Ilford South in the eye when their friends and family are dying because of the utter chaos and ineptitude of this Government.
That initial financial support must urgently be provided to the workers and businesses in Ilford South and across London. The cost would be far smaller than that which would be required if the infection and death rates soared, and London was forced into a far longer and more serious lockdown over a protracted period of many months. Similar calls have been echoed by the Mayor of London, who just today stated the need for  tighter restrictions across the city. In my constituency, all the data shows that it is our black and majority Asian communities that are suffering so badly as a result of the virus. We cannot afford for them to continue to be on the frontline.
I implore the Government, who have the lives of my constituents in their hands, to act now and bring in a circuit-breaker lockdown across London immediately.

Taiwo Owatemi: Just yesterday the Prime Minister and the Government unleashed a new package of restrictions and tiers in order to tackle the transmission of the coronavirus. Yesterday afternoon, in a meeting with west midlands MPs, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the MPs present that all bar two areas—Dudley and Coventry—will be placed on tier 2 restrictions. When I asked him whether he could let me know the scientific basis for Coventry and Dudley being on tier 1 restrictions, and what could trigger a move to tier 2, my question was ignored and unanswered. When I asked how soon after a governmental decision has been made to move a constituency from one tier to another Members and community leaders would be alerted, I received no answer.
This is utterly unacceptable. My constituents in Coventry North West deserve better. They are doing everything they can to hold up their end of the bargain to ensure that transmission is low and stays that way. They deserve more clarity on the evidence behind the Government’s decisions. Clarity ensures adherence. Without it we are flailing in the wind, and people are suffering. Right now, the Government risk losing confidence in their ability to see us through this crisis. They have wasted months of precious time and millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money, and are still not getting it right. Will the Minister let us know just how much notice each local area will be given if a change in its restriction level occurs, and how local communities and local leaders will be told of these decisions?
To borrow a phrase that we are all too familiar with, winter is coming. It is imperative for the Government to be better prepared to tackle the virus, and equip our hospitals and care sectors with the resources they need to handle the second wave. I fear that the Government have not learnt lessons from spring, and that our care sector will be under-protected. I fear that our hospitals will be ill prepared to cope, and that non-covid patients will once again be relegated to the back burner, because the right precautions and planning are not in place to deal with what may come.
Will the Minister let the House know what the Government are doing to prepare for the pressures on our NHS that winter will bring, in particular for cancer patients? What plans will be in place clearly to address sprawling waiting lists for cancer services, and what additional support have the Government given to the many thousands of people who have had their cancer treatment disrupted over the course of the pandemic? These are pertinent question that we have asked the Government time and again, but yet again they are providing us with little clarity and no answer—on the back foot, as usual.
This is an opportunity for the Government to do better, and, in the interests of the country, I really hope they do.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), and I share very much her frustration at the impossibility of getting clear answers from the Government on so many of these important questions.
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves”—
those words from William Pitt were included in an email from one of my constituents complaining about the way in which this Government are treating the constituents in Christchurch and so many other people in this country. What is the necessity for what the Government are bringing forward today? I asked on 8 October whether the Government would publish the evidence in support of the Secretary of State’s statement on 1 October that
“hundreds of thousands of deaths…would follow”—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 503.]—
if the Government just let the virus rip. There has been no answer to that question—no attempt to answer it—nor has there been any justification for the arbitrary introduction of a 10 o’clock curfew.

Edward Leigh: Does my hon. Friend trust the prognosis of Professor Ferguson, whose estimates have been proved wrong again and again and are wildly exaggerated?

Christopher Chope: I do not trust them at all. I shall refer to the evidence from Sweden, because the Prime Minister’s challenge to his critics was to put forward an alternative. The Swedish approach is clear and simple—it is to trust the people and make them responsible for their own health and welfare. I looked at the figures for Sweden for the first week of October. Only seven deaths were recorded in Sweden in the whole of that period and today, not a single death was recorded in Sweden. The Swedish Public Health Agency recommends that household isolation and quarantine should exclude those who have provisionally tested positive for covid-19 or have been confirmed to have antibodies in the last six months. I tabled a question asking why that category of people cannot be exempt from these regulations. Again, I have not had an answer, although the time when it should have been answered has long passed. This is intolerable—the arrogance with which the Government are treating us as elected Members of this place.
Swedish common sense is to the fore. They have restricted gatherings not to six, but to 50. They allow nursing homes to decide their own visiting policies. They regard the rules about face coverings as simplistic and irrelevant. Again, on face coverings, I tabled a parliamentary question on 25 September asking the Secretary of State
“whether the introduction of regulations requiring the use of face coverings was linked to an increase in infection rates of covid-19”.
It will not have escaped your notice, Mr Deputy Speaker, that since those regulations were brought in, there has been an exponential increase in the infection rate in this country. Have I had an answer to that question? Of course not, which suggests that the Government do not even want to face up to the evidence that face coverings are counterproductive and are leading to a false sense of security.
In Sweden, two thirds of all deaths from covid-19 have been in the over-80 age group. That is similar to the situation here, and all the United Kingdom restrictions have so far given the average member of this country—the UK citizen—an extra half-day of life. These new restrictions that are coming in will not even give that, because the collateral damage that is being caused will actually reduce life expectancy further.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Clearly, if we are going to live with this virus, which we obviously will at least until—if ever—a vaccine is found, we need to influence individuals to behave in a way that not only keeps them safe, but makes them discharge their responsibility to keep safe other people in society and in their families. There are many tools that Governments can use to do this. They include rules, regulations and restrictions on activity. They also include messaging. We must give positive incentives to do these things, as well as negative consequences if the rules are not followed. However, I have to say to the Government that more rules will just mean that the compliant, who are not engaging in risky behaviour, will continue to comply, but that those who are reckless will find ways round the rules.
There is no better example of that than the curfew. We know that there is no scientific basis for doing it to protect people’s wellbeing. We have penalised restaurants, which now have to close at 10 pm and cannot do two sittings in an evening, although they have made massive investments to make their premises covid-secure. We are punishing the compliant. Meanwhile, publicans in the high street can comply with the rules and close at 10, but they are offering take-outs at 9.45 to the massive crowds of people spilling out of the pubs. That is reckless behaviour, and I really think the Government need to take stock. It is clear that this is not a good measure to influence behaviour in any positive way. There are much better ways of doing it. Considering the powers that the Government have already taken, I think we should look at more enforcement of fewer rules and regulations, rather than creating new ones when there are issues.
In the time I have left, I want to pay tribute to my community and to the local authority officials and health officials in Thurrock for the fantastic effort they have made in tackling this virus. We are currently 134th out of 149 local authorities in terms of cases. We have a local contact tracing capability that has kept rates down, and we have had no deaths since July, so it has come as some surprise that Public Health England has been lobbying my local authority to move from tier 1 to tier 2. That makes an absolute nonsense of this tiering policy, because we should be asking for additional restrictions only where there will be a material benefit to public health. My director of public health advises me that further restrictions will actually jeopardise public health, and that there will be no benefits from them. We must not be complacent, given the current rise in cases, but please will the Minister resist any attempt to put Thurrock into tier 2?

Catherine McKinnell: With time short, I want to highlight just a few issues relating to the measures being debated today.  I have always said that I will support any measures required that will successfully contain and minimise the devastating impact of this virus, but I hope it has become clear to the Government, after a weekend of discontent, that this country will not accept measures determined by stealth and communicated through press leaks in the night. Those affected by these measures are owed much greater respect than that. The leaks last Thursday evening caused widespread anxiety across Newcastle. People are fearing for their jobs, businesses are cancelling orders and preparing to batten down, suppliers are finding themselves left with goods that are no longer wanted and families are fearing that this might be their last chance to meet. This is no way to treat people who have already suffered so much as a result of the virus.
Everyone accepts that sacrifice is needed. The resolve that people have needed to make those sacrifices to protect the most vulnerable and support the NHS has been unwavering, but they must have confidence that their sacrifices are worth the pain and will actually bring the right results. That is why the Government’s approach has been so damaging. We cannot afford to lose the confidence of those we rely on to make this work. The Government need to be open, honest and transparent, and respectful to those who need to live with these restrictions. We saw a much better approach yesterday, and I hope the Government have learned and will not put people through that anxiety again.
I want to put on record my concern about whether these restrictions are necessary at all. There is a sense of inevitability about this, but the fact is that the UK is far from world-leading when it comes to handling this virus, despite its regular over-inflated claims. We need a functioning test, track and trace system, and we need support for those who are isolating. Also, we are not on top of asymptomatic transmission, and that is a major problem. It was needed last time and it is still needed now.
I have one more specific issue to raise. With no financial support being provided to hospitality businesses in tier 2, we have to know that these measures will work. By allowing restaurants to remain open in the tier 3 areas, despite closing the bars, the Government seem to have acknowledged that restaurants carry a lower level of risk. The effects of alcohol consumption on social distancing are well documented, but the situation where alcohol is served alongside a meal is clearly different. We are not talking nuts and crisps, but a meal, yet the blanket 10 pm curfew for all hospitality in tiers 1 and 2 does not account for the different transmission risk. It does not look after restaurants which, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) pointed out, can offer two sittings. There is no time for dessert or coffee. That sounds trivial, but it can be make or break for a restaurant business. The Government need to look again at lumping all hospitality businesses into the same restrictions. It does not work.

Edward Leigh: Mr Deputy Speaker, you may well think that over 37 years, you have heard enough from me, so let me read out a letter that happened to arrive this morning from a constituent. It says:
“I am 67 years old and for the first time in a long time I am scared. Not of the virus, which, let’s be honest, is proving to be no more deadly than the flu”—
that is his opinion; I do not necessarily share it.
“I am scared of the damage being deliberately caused to the economy and our freedoms by this Government in the name of covid-19. It isn’t the virus closing businesses and causing job losses, it’s the actions of the Government. It isn’t the virus stopping people getting treatment and operations, it’s the actions of the Government. It isn’t the virus preventing pupils and students getting the education they are entitled to, it’s the actions of the Government.”
So speaks my constituent in a letter that arrived this morning.
Another letter arrived this morning from a constituent telling me that they were having doorstep services very successfully over recent months attended by six to 16 people in place of going to church if that was not possible. That, of course, now breaks the rule of six, so they have had to stop.
I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) in posing some serious questions to Government that have to be answered. On positive test results—I ask the Government to write back to me if they cannot answer in the winding-up speech—what percentage do they estimate are false positives? Of covid hospitalisations, what is the breakdown between those in hospital who happen to have tested positive and those who are in hospital because of their covid symptoms? Given the disparity between the number of cases and the number of deaths, are we not wrong to react to the rate of infection, rather than hospitalisations and deaths? There are many, many other questions that need answering.
Following my hon. Friend, what is the evidence that we are saving lives by throwing people out of pubs at 10 o’clock into the street? They can go and buy lager in the shops. They can go back to their student digs.

Christopher Chope: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way of bringing the Government to account would be to withhold our support until these important questions are answered?

Edward Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point. We are a Parliament and we are entitled to express our opinion and hold the Government to account, and that is what we are trying to do this afternoon.
The trouble with the Health Secretary’s arguments is that he is always raising up Aunt Sallies and pretending that some of us want to let this thing rip. We are simply trying to ask questions of the Government and hold them to account. No Member of Parliament wants to let this thing rip, but what we do say is that the real danger of the disease is to people over 80. The average age of death is 82, and the vast number of them are over 80. It is up to the older population and those who care for them to take self-responsibility—masked by all means, taking great care and shielding even in places of multiple occupation. We have to shield elderly people—they are the people at risk—but we have to get the country back to work. We simply cannot go on bailing out businesses. We are going bankrupt, as I said to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this afternoon.
With the economy, we are hoping to pull ourselves up by the hair. We cannot do it. We have to allow people to work, and therefore the whole approach needs to change. We need to emphasise the need to shield the elderly population and those who care for them and we need people to take back control of their own lives. I repeat—I will say it again and again—that if we go on cancelling  cancer operations and heart operations, if we drive people into mental health difficulties and if we close down businesses, we are paying a terrible price, and there has to be a balance.

Conor McGinn: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman. I do not always agree with him, but he does always make me think. I hope to be able, on behalf of my constituents, to articulate their anxiety, their confusion and their frustration with today having been placed, along with the rest of the Liverpool city region, under tier 3 restrictions. The imposition of such stringent measures has come as a surprise to us. I want to make it clear that this decision, including the specificity on the businesses that are closing and the restrictions on movement and on people, has been made by the Government. There was an ad hoc process of discussion with local leaders, but there was no proper mechanism for consulting them about these measures which will have such a huge impact on the 1.6 million people across our city region. So for the Government to say that this was agreed is like me saying to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we have agreed that I will have only three minutes to speak in this debate.
That is important because it speaks to the heart of the lack of trust and public confidence in the Government, and I say that with a heavy heart. Businesses have played their part in my community: pubs, gyms, leisure centres, betting shops and casinos have all expended huge amounts of money and resources in getting themselves ready to reopen, only to have been let down by systemic failures on the part of the Government on test, trace and isolate. I am not opposed to restrictions where they are required and necessary, and let me say clearly that I am worried about the rising rate of infection in Merseyside and in St Helens, and about the increased incidence of hospitalisations, but if these restrictions are to be imposed, we need to see evidence for them and a measure of financial support. It speaks volumes that not only have the Government failed to provide that in a bespoke way for St Helens and Merseyside, but they have stopped local leaders using the £40 million unallocated from the first round of business support to help businesses that are now having to shut their doors, and they have asked for that money back. That is shameful and it is not a way for the Government to bring the public along with them.
This is fundamentally about the people who live in my constituency. We are a resilient people in St Helens and we have been through a lot, but resilience is not enough to get us through this. We need help from the Government. Our businesses need the resources to survive, and our NHS needs the tools and staff to get through a difficult number of months. I fail to see how imposing a tier 3 lockdown on one part of the country with diverse rates contained within its entity will do very much to mitigate this—the SAGE report said the same yesterday. It is time that everybody shared in the pain in a short break—a national lockdown for two weeks—to get this under control and for the Government to develop an exit strategy to get the whole country out of this mess.

Christian Wakeford: I will start by disagreeing with the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), because another lockdown   would be the wrong thing to do. I rise to speak to statutory instruments 1103, 1104 and 1105, on the tiered approach, and to SI 1029, although I believe it has now been superseded by the tiered approach. Although I rise to speak about those items, I do not support them. I am a friend of the Government, and sometimes the best thing a friend can do is be a critical friend. I hope that the Government will take my comments in that light, seeing them as critical but constructive.
Although I welcome the premise of a three-tiered approach, in simplifying what was a patchwork of restrictions across the country, I am unfortunately unable to support it in its current format. While the 10 pm curfew is involved, I see this doing nothing but harm to a sector that has done everything asked of it by the Government. Obviously, we have limited the number of clients these businesses can have and now we have limited the number of hours they can open for, which is causing them real harm, not only in my constituency but across the north and the country. SAGE has said that the curfew was likely to have only a marginal impact and looking at the data we see that that is evidently the case, with a small percentage of transmission taking place in this environment. As such, I urge Ministers to follow the science in this regard and remove the curfew as early as possible.
Although I appreciate what the Government are trying to achieve with the tiered system, it falls far short. We are very much doomed to going down the “Hotel California” approach whereby we are having restrictions imposed on us that we may never leave. Thresholds whereby we can go up or down a tier have not been made clear. My constituency is at the peak of tier 2 and so is at risk of being in tier 3 soon, but we have no idea where the threshold is to go into tier 3 or what we would need to meet to come back out of it should we go into it. Further support needs to go to tier 2—not only to businesses that are struggling already but in order to prevent a need to go into tier 3, which should ultimately be a last resort. Hopefully with earlier intervention we can mitigate the need for any further places to go into tier 3.
There needs to be far more support for those sectors that, under Government edict, are being closed, whether that be the events industry or the wedding industry, which are having severely limited numbers imposed upon them. It is the Government who are saying that they cannot operate; therefore, the Government should step forward and support them. I think the Government are going down the right avenue; I just do not think that they have got it quite right. That would be my constructive comment to the Government. I give them a C for the marking, but a “must try harder”.

Claudia Webbe: It is hard to follow such optimism. I would begin by saying that the Government have lost control of the coronavirus, but that would not be entirely accurate, because at every step of this crisis, from a nonsensical herd immunity strategy to the initial lockdown delay, equipment shortages, care home neglect, contradictory messaging, a privatised testing crisis and much more, the Government have failed to adequately protect our communities.
My constituency of Leicester East has been in lockdown, or under significant restrictive measures, whether we call it tier 3, as it was then, or tier 2, as it is now, for over 100 days—to be precise, 106—at great cost to livelihoods, our businesses, our collective wellbeing and our mental and physical health. The Government are failing on lives and livelihoods. I therefore do not believe that they have ever had this virus under control, and I fear that the measures introduced this week will not be enough.
This catastrophe was not inevitable. Across the world, countries from New Zealand to China are returning to normality. I hope that you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for saying that no city has borne a greater brunt of the Government’s failed approach than Leicester. Sadly, the Government have wasted the sacrifices of the British people, as we are now in a similar position to where we were in March. They spent £12 billion on a failed test and trace programme, which prioritises the enrichment of private corporations over the protection of our communities.
Rather than trust local health experts and the public sector, the Government have outsourced responsibility to corporate giants, which have consistently failed, with unacceptable contract rates as low as 50% or lower. My home city of Leicester is a prime example of the contrasting success of an underfunded local public health-led trace system. The success rate for our contact system is over 85%. The wasteful experiment of the private sector in our test and trace system must end.
It should be simple: if someone is contacted by NHS Test and Trace they must be provided with the material means to isolate. It does not matter what rules are set if no one in government is taking these matters seriously and if they are interpreting the rules to suit their own interests. The Government are not even following the advice of their own scientists, who make it clear what needs to be done to put the health of the nation first and protect lives.

Huw Merriman: I am very pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. When I put in to speak at the end of last week, it was on the basis that we would be discussing the nationwide 10 o’clock curfew, but of course events have intervened and we now find ourselves in a situation of a tiered approach towards lockdown. Many of us on the Conservative Benches will know that if, as I expect, no votes are held on the tiered approach, by the time we get to the actual vote on the 10 pm nationwide curfew it will be somewhat futile. Even if that, to great surprise, did not pass, it would not have any effect because those in the medium level would still have that 10 pm curfew. None the less, I want to touch on it.
I want to pick up some of the themes in the regulations, and the concerns that many Conservative Members have. Sometimes I have heard it suggested that Members who raise concerns wish to let the virus rip. On the contrary, we have great concerns that, if we are not careful, we will rip out the heart of our economy and see jobs lost, livelihoods destroyed, and the impact on health that all that can bring. We have already seen hospital treatment times ripped upso that those who have something seriously wrong with them that could have been treated will now have a terminal illness. Households and friendships have had their social cohesion  ripped out by the fact that they are isolated and cannot share their precious time. For some people at the end of their life, this is the only time that they have remaining to see their family and loved ones.
I want the Government to consider that those of who speak on this side of the argument do so because we are concerned that we will lose more than the benefits that the covid protections they want to introduce could bring. I want the Government to take this side of the argument with us; I want to see more evidence that the restrictions will work; that a vaccineis in sight; that we are having temporary additional lockdowns because there is a vaccine in place. If there is not, we must be honest. We cannot shut down this country and all the people within it for years to come because it would not be sustainable or accepted.
My message to the Government is, “Please take us with you. In the event that there is no long-term solution, we will have to live with this virus as we live with the other menu of risksthat we face daily.”

Mike Amesbury: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
We hear from Minister after Minister the mantrathat we should follow the science or the medical advice to tackle the spread of covid-19. It seems common sense, really. We now have the highest excess death rate in Europe, and the worst recession in the G7. That is not an act of God; it is because of serial incompetence by the Government. I do not want the Government to be in that place. Opposition Members sincerely do not want the Government to be in that place. We all have loved ones and constituents with families and caring responsibilities, and this is a matter of life and death.
Yet it was revealed today in the media that SAGE gave advice about a reset—a short period of time; it could have been over the school holidays—and that advice was not followed. Now we have more of the same—the whack-a-mole strategythat the Prime Minister referred to. The only problem is, certainly in parts of my constituency, that the mole hills are appearing rapidly by the day. One part of the constituency—Halton—is now in tier 3. We can have arguments about that, when we compare Halton with other places across the region. The other part of my constituency is in tier 2, just to complicate matters slightly when we communicate messages to residents.
Just an hour or an hour and a half ago, we saw the national figure for deaths—145 people have lost their life today. It is very serious in my constituency when we look at hospital admissions and people in ICU. It is a big issue and a big problem, which requires an approach based on evidence. That evidence states clearly and it has consistently been argued for six months, certainly by local leaders, that local authorities should be resourced up and down the land. The Government should link public health professionals with a national system to create an effective test, track and isolatesystem. That is the major problem here. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle is right that we need a vaccine and we are probably going to have to live with this virus for some time. We need effective systems in place.
Follow the evidence. Look at hospitality, look at the pub trade, look at restaurants. We have all seen the evidence presented by the Government—

Nigel Evans: I am sorry, Mike, we have to move on.

Thomas Tugendhat: I must start with some moments of sadness, which is that, although we have heard much praise of the vaccines in development, the reality is that we do not know whether one is coming. If it does come, how effective will it be? If it is effective, which groups will it benefit? Even if it is effective in wide groups, how easily will it be made and distributed? We have so many variables and so many unknowns here.
I appreciate enormously the position that the Minister and the Government find themselves in, but it is because of this uncertainty that we need to look really hard at the decisions we are making tonight. These decisions are not just about the spread of coronavirus, or indeed its prevention, but about the health, the mental health and the wellbeing of our entire community. Fundamentally, they are not just about health today, but about health tomorrow. The impact on the economy is not simply something for the Treasury to be interested in; it is of fundamental interest to the Department of Health and Social Care and to the welfare of every person in this country. That is why I ask the Government to think very hard as they make these decisions.
The purpose of government is quite simple: it is to provide a stable platform on which people can build free and independent lives—not controlled lives, not ordered lives, but lives that are free and independent. Today, we are taking decisions that are interrupting that and making that harder. I see the position that the Government find themselves in, but I ask them to think very hard about the powers that they are asking to take.
At the moment, we are not getting the predictability and the consistency that we need. When we talk to ambassadors or high commissioners of the United Kingdom around the world, there are some countries that have easy access to the UK without quarantine and others that do not. The rules that govern which do and which do not are not immediately consistent. It is not immediately obvious which will benefit and which will not. When we look at the different areas in the United Kingdom, we see the same problem. This level of consistency, of predictability, that is so essential for a free people to know and to invest in—

Edward Leigh: All we want from the Government is consistency. They spent all summer telling us to go into pubs and restaurants, and paying us to do so. They told us all summer to go back to our offices, and now they are telling us the opposite. Members might not agree with what they are doing in Sweden, but at least there is a consistent message. That is all I am asking of the Government.

Thomas Tugendhat: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. What we are looking for is the consistency to know that, over the next two, three, or perhaps five years, we will have to live with this virus and perhaps without a fully effective vaccine. We need a system that people can rely on, can know what they are doing and can be able to plan their lives, because, at the moment, it is off the bus, on the bus, off the bus, on the bus. For those of us who have served in uniform, we know how  much time that wastes, we know how much time that takes, and it makes it so much harder not just to plan for weddings and, sadly, for funerals, but to make even simple investment decisions. Even those areas of the economy that are not closed down suffer because of the lack of predictability.
I ask the Government to think very hard about the decisions that they are taking, to devolve as much as possible locally so that those who are in closest touch with the populations that they are elected to govern can make the decisions, to follow the track and trace and to understand the effects of the virus locally, and, on a much wider scale, to come up with rules that can actually be relied on not just for a few weeks, not just for a few months, but, sadly, possibly for several years.

Munira Wilson: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). As he pointed out, there is some significant uncertainty about when we might have a vaccine, so there are two critical levers to tackling this virus: one is public trust, which the Government can achieve by taking people with them on the measures that they seek to implement; the other is a functioning, locally led, test, trace and isolate system.
On public trust, the Government have made much of following the science. Yesterday, we found out that there were plenty of recommendations from SAGE that the Government chose not to follow. The legislation that we are considering is before us today. That may be so, but it is up to politicians to make policy decisions and advisers to advise. To build public trust, the Government need to explain their thinking. What are their trade-offs? They need to show their working. When they have considered these measures, what are the wider health impacts of not taking them? What are the economic impacts of taking these measures? People need to see for themselves, and there must be trust from the public in following the new measures. I strongly agree that clarity of message is important for public trust.
Many Members have mentioned following the science, and my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) made a passionate argument about the curfew, which we know is resulting in other behaviours that frankly put public health and those businesses at risk. A publican in my constituency said, “We will just have to make up for the lost income by encouraging people to drink earlier in the day,” with bottomless brunches and so on. That binge drinking will happen earlier, or in people’s homes after the pubs have shut.
The Minister will have heard my earlier interventions on test, trace and isolate, and I believe that the 90 pages of complex rules and regulations would not be necessary if we had a properly functioning system. We got the R rate below one in the national lockdown, and on 23 April the Secretary of State said:
“Test, track and trace will be vital to stop a second peak of the virus.”
I know he likes to talk about his very large testing system, but we have had all sorts of issues with data, and sadly he was making jokes about that in the Smoking Room last week, apparently.

Thomas Tugendhat: Not true.

Munira Wilson: Okay, but he has not denied it. [Hon. Members: “Yes, he has!] Fair enough. I withdraw that remark. This is not a party political point. I care for my country, and lives and jobs are at risk. Please can we sort out test, trace and isolate, because none of the measures will work if the system is not operating properly.

Nigel Evans: It was a very decent thing to do to withdraw that remark.

Richard Graham: The Government’s responsibilities, for both lives and livelihoods, require an almost impossible balancing act that is unlikely to satisfy anyone, least of all natural Conservative job creators, who ask only to be allowed to get on with their business with as little interference as possible. The uncomfortable reality, however, is that our country would not accept those struck by the pandemic dying without dignity if hospitals and mortuaries are full, and that means doing things that none of us imagined in our wildest nightmares.
In constituencies such as mine—Gloucester is in tier 1 —the message must be for all to take the restrictions seriously to avoid becoming a higher risk area with yet more severe restrictions. We must enable Gloucestershire Royal Hospital to have capacity to help those with covid and treat cancer and other patients. I urge the Government to promise less and deliver more and to provide a faster testing service so that those at our universities, colleges and schools can function well. They should expedite the go-ahead for Heathrow’s 20-minute test for travellers and reconsider the details of the 10 pm closure when supermarkets are still selling booze later.
The Government should increase delegation to local authorities, such as the responsible public health team at Gloucestershire County Council, and let us all share as much information as possible. As these restrictions continue, they should carefully consider ways to allow young mother and baby groups to meet, for example, or allow some fans at outdoor sport. We will need those small moments of joy to help us through an otherwise difficult winter. I will support the Government tonight, but those questions need answering. The cost of lost livelihoods will only grow while we wait to see whether these restrictions work and science provides longer-term solutions.

Steve McCabe: I would love to have been a fly on the wall during the discussions that have just taken place, because I have yet to hear from a west midlands council leader or a mayor who supports the decisions that were arrived at, and there seems to be little evidence to support the tier 2 decision. I am told that contact tracing shows that hospitality is probably responsible for about 2% of contacts in Birmingham, and I do not quite get it. Giving pubs 48 hours’ notice of the plan shows indifference to the pressure that those people are under and the jobs that are at risk.
I want to mention two things on testing. One of my constituents told me she had developed symptoms and got a test at the local walk-in centre on 1 October. Seven days later, no results, so she ordered a home test and  sent it off. Then someone at 119 advised that, because she was tested more than seven days ago, they could not give her the results, and 12 days later, no test results at all. Her husband is ill in hospital and she cannot visit until she has a negative test. Why are we doing this to her?
Another constituent received a text at 6 am on Sunday morning with the name, date of birth and covid test result for someone they have never met or heard of. The test results were negative, but I have no idea whether the person who actually took the test knows that. I have raised this matter urgently with NHS Track and Trace, but frankly, I am sceptical about getting any kind of suitable reply. My constituent has never had a covid test. How on earth has this happened, and how many other people’s results have been sent to the wrong person? World-beating—we would settle for something that simply worked.
I have two final observations. First, why are Ministers continuing to tell people that it will be okay by Christmas? What kind of signal are they sending people at this time? Do they mean it will be okay by Christmas and then terrible in the new year? Is that what they are planning to do? Finally, I would really like to know why we did not give council leaders the option of a two-week circuit break, as was suggested by the officials. Would that not have been a much better deal for many of the people in my constituency and in many other constituencies around the country than the ridiculous proposals that have now been imposed on them?

Danny Kruger: I start by paying tribute to the Ministers for the work they have been doing. I recognise that they are in an incredibly difficult time and doing their best, so I pay tribute to them personally. They are trying to strike a balance between clarity and giving, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has said, a consistent message to the public, and trying to achieve flexibility in recognising that the infection works in different ways in different places. They need to strike a balance between the national and the local, which is not easy, and I recognise the challenge in striking that balance.
I do not want to talk about the risk to the economy that we face, because other hon. Members have made that point very powerfully. I simply want to raise the tragedy that this pandemic represents for our communities. The tragedy is that, as a virus, it works through human relationships, through families and households, through communities and the gathering places of our neighbourhoods —the pubs, churches and sports fields, the institutions that give our lives not only pleasure but identity and meaning. I know that the Government share that sense of tragedy and want us out of this situation as soon as possible.
I accept the advice the Government are getting on the transmission and the value of all the different lockdown measures. I simply want to make an appeal for a response to the virus that is less about big business and big government. I accept why big business and big government —Deloitte and Public Health England—were called in at the outset, but surely we can say that we have tested that approach sufficiently to suggest that there might be a better way to deal with this, a response that is less about big government and big business, and more about local communities and trusting the people and the professionals in our local places.
I know that the Government share a belief in the important of civil society, local government and trusting public health professionals locally. I hope that, as we move through this terrible winter, we can adopt a different model, relying less on the undoubted intelligence, goodwill and good intentions of people in this postcode and more on the people in the places we represent.

Mike Wood: This global pandemic has had a horrific impact—not only a huge human cost but a tremendous economic and social cost, caused by the measures that have had to be taken to contain the spread of the virus. None of us would want to be in the position of having to take these decisions, and I certainly do not envy the Minister for Health and other members of the Government who have to balance the need to safeguard both lives and livelihoods. It demands a combination of the judgment of Solomon and the navigational skills of Thetis to reach what is often the least bad outcome, in a situation where there are no right decisions and no good outcomes.
If we are to reassure not only the residents but the businesses in our constituencies, many of which provide the jobs, livelihoods and prosperity on which they rely, we need to be clear about the basis on which decisions are taken. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the openness with which he has approached this, making himself, his ministerial colleagues, scientific and medical advisers and officials available for a wide range of briefings on that evidence.
In the minute I have left, I want to speak briefly about the obligations on the hospitality sector. Clearly these measures have a hugely detrimental impact on pubs, bars, restaurants and the many small businesses that rely on them, whether in the brewing, events or wedding industries. We need to be clear about the evidence on the extent of transmission in hospitality and similar settings and what has led officials’ and advisers’ clear confidence that the measures being taken will make a meaningful difference. At the briefing last Friday, the chief medical officer said it was too early to be sure about the extent to which the restricted opening times in the last three weeks had made a difference, but he was sure that it had made a difference. As that data becomes available, it needs to be shared with Members of Parliament and with our constituents.

Sara Britcliffe: First, I want to highlight how amazing the community of Hyndburn and Haslingden has been throughout this pandemic. The sacrifices they have made have been unbelievably difficult, and we have faced higher levels of restrictions than most across the country. All through this, I have tried my best, as have local leaders in our community, to bring people with us, and one of the difficulties we have faced is the varying restrictions. Many have said that the new tiered system and the simplification of messaging is the best approach to take. I understand how difficult the balancing act is between getting the numbers down, protecting those who are vulnerable and protecting people’s jobs and livelihoods, and so do most of my residents across Hyndburn and Haslingden, who are doing everything they can to get our rates down.
The reality we face is that, in Hyndburn and Haslingden, the rate of infection is now over 300 per 100,000 people. As of today, 40% of our ICU beds in the Royal Blackburn Hospital are now occupied by covid patients. Hospitalisations are increasing, people are losing their lives and the virus is taking hold across Lancashire. We are seeing this virus move from young adults to those who are most vulnerable. Nobody wants that, and we cannot let this virus go unchecked. These are people’s friends, loved ones and family members. The Royal Blackburn Hospital is not cancelling elective surgery, but I echo the concerns of Lancashire chiefs about what will happen if covid cases continue to rise. I urge Health Ministers and officials to continue their engagement with local leaders across Lancashire.
I also want to comment on how the announcement will affect the hospitality industry. Many pubs across Hyndburn and Haslingden have contacted me about the financial struggles they fear they will face due to the rule on only households and bubbles being allowed to meet in their premises. My local pubs, such as the Albion in Clayton, the Tinker and Budget, and the Hare and Hounds, have expressed their worries that it may have been better for them to be forced to shut their doors rather than to operate under tier 2 restrictions. It would be beneficial for the Treasury to look at a tiered approach to the financial support available to the hospitality sector, as those who have to close will receive financial support while those who fall under tier 2 still face tighter restrictions and could be operating at a loss of about 60%. I ask Ministers to work across Departments to find a financial strategy that matches the tiered approach, as we urgently need to support the beating heart of our communities. Nobody wants to shut their doors and most are doing all that they can to keep people safe in their establishments.
Finally, I want to highlight how critical road maps are. If we need to move between tiers, then we need to do so with clear messaging and to bring our community with us. We need to explain why certain measures are being brought in, backed up by the data. Let us do what is necessary now to protect the vulnerable and save lives while supporting jobs and livelihoods.

Antony Higginbotham: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe).
I welcome the tiered system because it increases the simplicity of the messaging. That is very welcome, because it is what our constituents need more than anything else at the minute. The vast majority want to comply; they want to do the right thing. But for the past couple of weeks—I speak as the Member for Burnley, where we have had a higher case rate than most places in the country—the complexity of the messaging has been difficult. The next thing that they want is light at the end of the tunnel. They want to know that there is something to look forward to. Will Ministers look at the four-week review period to see if there is a way to bring that down? The worry is that at four weeks, if we are placed into extra restrictions—into tier 3—at some point next month, we are looking at Christmas before there is even a review of when those measures could be lifted.
As many Members have said, where this virus spreads, it spreads in the one thing we hold very close to each other—our relationships. We live together, we grieve together, we celebrate together, and we compete together. I get the sense from some that they think that the only option is to lock down completely. I do not think that is the right thing to do. We absolutely need to limit interactions, but it needs to be targeted in the right place, at the right time, for the right length of time. Sacrifice is important and it is sacrifice that will get us through this, but it cannot be without hope.
That brings me to test and trace, which is the best tool we have to make sure that our sacrifices are time-limited. We have an enormous testing capacity, and Ministers should be congratulated on that. We have done more than many other countries. But the capacity in itself does not protect us; what protects us is how we use it. I ask Ministers, either today or in the future, to update us on the rapid testing that will be delivered in five minutes or 20 minutes, because that is how we will get those human relationships back. That is how we will get football fans back into stadiums, children into schools when there is an outbreak, and all the other things that we want to do. If Ministers could do that, the hope that I spoke of that gives people a light at the end of the tunnel will come back.

Chris Loder: I pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues for all the hard work they are doing at this time.
I fully understand, as the Member for West Dorset, a very rural seat, that many colleagues in the House represent constituencies that have far more difficult situations with coronavirus than I and my neighbours in Dorset. I know full well that Ministers in the Cabinet will be treading the difficult line between public health and safety and the economy. However, in my constituency, I have 100,000 residents, 400 geographical square miles, 132 parishes, 117 pubs, and two people who are poorly in hospital with coronavirus symptoms. We are faced this evening with a motion that will in effect close our village pubs at 10 o’clock. That is deeply, deeply damaging to our community. It is putting hundreds and hundreds of jobs at risk. I have to ask the Minister and his colleagues to consider that this one-size-fits-all approach to the 10 pm curfew really is not right for rural parts of Britain such as mine, where it will be deeply damaging to the economy. Can I just ask the Minister and his colleagues to take this away? I shall have real difficulty supporting the Government on that this evening—real difficulty—and I very much ask him to see what can be done.

Bob Seely: I would like to talk briefly about the need for a plan, the use of language and the use of science. I am delighted that the Minister is here, because he is a very diligent Minister and I know he listens closely to his colleagues.
First, we need a longer-term plan than the one that I think is on offer. We need a sense of strategy and a sense of clarity. We may be living with this virus for months or, in the worst case scenario, for years. Waiting for the cavalry in the shape of a vaccine is taking longer than we hoped, and there is a chance—a small chance—that  it may never happen, but even if we get that vaccine in the weeks and months ahead, it may only be a mitigation, not a cure-all.
The promised return to normality by December clearly has not happened, so we need to articulate what is paramount to protect people as much as possible, while ensuring that the cure is not worse than the disease. I think that, at times, our posture has been reactive. That does not mitigate the fact that lots of good stuff has been done: our economic response has been powerful; Test and Trace, even imperfect, is an extraordinary achievement; and likewise, the Nightingale hospitals.
We are getting there, but I do not think we are there yet, and I think the answer needs to be more of a plan and perhaps more of a decentralised approach. Many of us have had concerns about this. We have said these things to the Whips, and I have been very careful about saying so publicly, but I think we are now at a juncture where it is beneficial that I and other colleagues are saying this.
Secondly, on language, I do not think the language of battle helps. Does the Minister agree with Professor Sikora, who has said:
“If you try to scare people with worst case scenarios, it doesn’t work”?
Talk of battle should be replaced by talk of “Keep calm and carry on”, because that is the language that I think we need.
Thirdly, and perhaps most critically, the Government talk about following the science, but actually it depends what question we ask the science. If we say, “Defeat the virus: suppress it in any way you can”, we get one course of action, and potentially a very destructive one. We must accept that the virus cannot be defeated, but be determined to mitigate it to protect as much as possible the elderly and the vulnerable, while trying to limit the damage to other people’s lives through increased cancer deaths, heart disease and strokes and—God knows—what must be happening to mental health in this country with people cooped up so much. We need a sense of balance.
To me, on the pubs issue, and on gyms and swimming pools, there is absolutely no evidence that shutting a pub or the restaurant in Yarmouth I was in on Saturday at 10 o’clock, or shutting a swimming pool or shutting a gym, actually helps prevent the transmission of this virus.

Derek Thomas: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), but also my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who spoke earlier, and I will pick up his theme.
I represent constituents in Cornwall, and we are the only part of the country that is a different colour to the rest, because actually we have reducing coronavirus numbers, which is why the 10 o’clock curfew makes no sense. We have talked again this afternoon—I do not want to rehearse everything that has been said, or anything—about consistency, yet we have told pubs they need to close at 10 o’clock but we have done absolutely nothing to curtail the sale of cheap alcohol in supermarkets. Once again, we are seeing the supermarkets doing everything they can to maximise their take on the back of the coronavirus. Those in the pubs that have been told to close are looking out of their window and seeing large groups of people, after curfew, drinking alcohol they have bought in the Co-op, dare I say, or other high street stores and supermarkets.
We know that poor health leads to greater risk of severe covid outcomes and we are concerned with the risk to health because of coronavirus, and the Government are not known to dither or delay, but one area—it is completely relevant—where the Government have dithered and delayed is the introduction of the minimum unit price for alcohol. What the Government could do right now to reassure pubs, which are not affected by that piece of legislation or that tax, is to curtail cheap alcohol sales in supermarkets, which would not only improve people’s health but give the pubs a chance to recover. If the Government are not prepared to change the curfew, they must be prepared to give pubs a fair chance.
The Government are already considering that; they could bring this forward. It would reduce the drinking culture, which is not helping, and improve health outcomes, which would improve people’s chances of surviving coronavirus and increase the Treasury’s income, which has to be something it is very concerned about.
The Government had no restraint in imposing the 10 pm curfew. They have shown that they can move quickly and aggressively when that is needed to protect people’s health. Why do they not do exactly the same and introduce the minimum unit price for alcohol?

Marco Longhi: I completely support the Government’s efforts to help bring coronavirus under control, to keep us safe and to protect the NHS and our economy. The easy clinical solution would have been a total lockdown, so the new tiered system is a mark of the effort going into providing responses that are tailored to localities.
Everyone understands that social contact poses a risk of contagion, so managing those contacts in pubs, cafes and suchlike is absolutely key. We want to keep those pubs open where we can—not just because of the jobs they provide directly and through the supply chain, but because pubs are often the only place of contact for many isolated people. I think of the Chapel House wet-only community pub in Gornal in my constituency, and James, the landlord, who is still making things work with about half the normal clientele. However, James has told me that if his pub is to retain table-only service, he will have double the staff as well. That is an equation he can balance for the next month or so only by dipping into reserves.
My appeal is for us to revisit the risk profile of table-only service in wet-only pubs, and to consider perhaps more creative suggestions that might be even better. At the moment, new, young staff might be covid- asymptomatic and moving from table to table taking orders, and then coming back serving that table. Can we not look, perhaps, at more creative ideas, such as a table calling system on rotation, so that an individual from each table, wearing a mask, is called to the bar systematically?
All I am asking is that we revisit the science around this specific issue. Whatever the outcome, I feel certain that Dudley people, and people in Gornal, will play their part in defeating this virus.

Paul Bristow: I have no choice but to be brief, so I shall make three short points.
First, lockdowns hit poorer people—those on shifts, those in insecure work, those who work in retail or hospitality, those who work alone and those who live in flats or smaller houses. Poorer people suffer when the economy suffers, so it is deeply regrettable that Labour Members have called for a second full national lockdown. That again reaffirms their position as the party for economic destruction. I urge the Government to resist calls for a full second national lockdown. That would be harsh and destructive, and it would condemn people on low incomes to much more difficult lives.
Secondly, what happened in Peterborough during the last lockdown was remarkable. Stevie Wiley, Ishfaq Hussain and Zillur Hussain, as well as countless others, inspired a city. We looked after the vulnerable. We delivered food to those who were shielding. We fed our rough sleepers. We come in different shapes and sizes, and from different ethnic groups. We even speak different languages, but we came through this as one city—perhaps more than any other city—although I do not want to do this again. Couples remain unmarried. Serious medical conditions remain undiagnosed and, in the case of my father, who died during lockdown, we are still unable to say goodbye in the way I would like. To be honest, I still grieve over this.
Peterborough has a rate of 56.4 cases per 100,000 people. For a big city with intergenerational households, dense housing and economic challenges, that really is a remarkable achievement. We have done the right thing and we do not want to be in tier 2. I want the Minister to hear this very clearly: we do not want to be in tier 2 and we will do everything we can to prevent this.
That brings me on to my final point. So many pubs and restaurants in Peterborough feel as though they are being punished for doing the right thing. They have gone to considerable expense to prepare themselves for these restrictions, and the 10 pm curfew in my city is having a devastating impact. Pubs and restaurants have closed—it is not that they might be closing—as a result of this. Why? When I look my local pub landlords and bar managers in the eye, I struggle to answer that. So I urge the Minister to review that 10 pm curfew, communicate why he feels it is a good idea, listen to the industry and reflect on what I have said today.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to be called in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to see the Minister for Health on the Front Bench—I have huge respect for him. This issue is one of national interest, is it not? This is not about party politics; it is about what we as individual MPs think is best for our country. MPs such as me, who disagree with the Government to a large extent, are not heretics. We do not want to “let it rip” and we do not want to see the elderly die; we are just trying to gauge as best as we can what is best for our country. Just because one or two, or a few, of us disagree with the Government, it does not mean to say that we are violently opposed to what they are doing. We have huge sympathy for them, as we have never been here before. But I ask myself every morning, and I have asked doctors and professionals this: if we locked down the whole country again for two, three or four months and covid almost disappeared, what would  happen when the door opened and we all came out again? That little virus would be there, saying, “Hello, I’m back” and it would infect us all again, because it is a pandemic.
This virus is not going to go away. Two days ago, I spoke to a professor who is working hard on a vaccine at a Southampton hospital and he was optimistic that a vaccine could be found. That is great news, but all vaccines come with a health warning—they do not necessarily do the job, as we have seen in the past. Flu is still here. People who get the vaccine still get the flu. Flu mutates and new vaccines have to be produced. So even if we get a covid vaccine—it would be good news and I would, of course, welcome it—the pandemic will still be here.
Is all this worth shutting down the country for? My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) does not want to be in tier 2, but all tiers are, in effect, shutting down the economy in local areas, to a lesser or greater extent. As a country, we are paying a terrible, terrible price, economically, socially, mentally, financially and in health terms. Millions of our constituents are suffering in unimaginable ways. I will end by talking about my parents, who, sadly, have passed away. I know for certain that were they alive now, they would say, “Richard, get out there. Get the country going again. Protect those like us as best as you can, but for God’s sake get the country back on its feet.”

Rosie Winterton: With one minute, I call Dehenna Davison.

Dehenna Davison: I know time is short, so I will keep it brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. The key point I want to get across is that, obviously, public health must be a priority but we must not forget the real human stories behind every one of the statistics. So we should look at not only the number of covid deaths but the economic impacts that lockdown measures are having right across our country. I have been banging the drum for our hospitality sector, pushing for additional support for it to protect those people who have spent their entire lives building up strong businesses that are integral to their local communities, right in the heart of those communities. I think of people such as Christian Burns and Cheryl Jeffrey. We must do all we can to try to protect them as best as we can as we move through this pandemic.

Edward Argar: As hon. Members will see, I have less than six minutes to respond. I regret that I may slightly disappoint the House in that—untypically for me—I will not be able to take interventions, having agreed with the Chair to enable the maximum number of Back-Bench contributions.
We have heard many different views and perspectives today, and although I may not personally fully share all of them, each represents an important and sincerely held point of view. Whatever the differences of approach among hon. Members, it is clear that all Members passionately share the common objectives of protecting lives and livelihoods. No one should doubt the underlying unity of purpose in this House.
As the Secretary of State set out, we have seen rapidly rising levels of transmission and infection, followed—with a time lag—by rising hospitalisations, particularly in the north-east and the north-west, and, sadly, increasing levels of deaths. I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) who pointed out that this disease is sadly now moving from younger people into older, more vulnerable age groups. We therefore need to take further measures to protect the public and the NHS—as we have done throughout the pandemic—as we enter winter.
At the same time, we seek to ensure that individuals and businesses are not subject to restrictions that are disproportionate to the risk in their area or to the risk that this disease poses. We need to continue to suppress infection rates and transmission. This is not just about protecting health; it is also about protecting our economy. As hon. and right hon. Members have said, regrettably there are no easy choices here. That is why the Government are recognising reasonable calls for a simplified and clearer set of regulations, by putting in place a simplified, tiered framework so that individuals and businesses can clearly understand the rules in their local area, the restrictions in place and what they will need to do to comply with them. This helps to build on the consent and compliance that many colleagues have mentioned that comes with taking people with us and clarity of messaging.
The Government are acutely sensitive to the impact that these restrictions will have on local areas, and hon. Members have spoken passionately on behalf of their constituencies today, including a large number who have made points about the 10 pm curfew, as the House and others will have heard. We have worked and continue to work closely with local leaders to seek a consensus on the actions that we are taking at each level. In the time preceding these announcements, we increased engagement with local authorities at official level, and had meetings with local leaders and directors of public health. Their valuable insights have helped to shape the new system set out in three of these sets of regulations today. I have to say that I know of no Minister who has done more to engage directly with colleagues, councils and communities than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Local authorities and local leaders will be involved in any further actions and decisions about what level each area falls into. Having previously spent almost 10 years as a local councillor, I pay tribute to the dedication of council officers and councillors. I am clear about their vital role, working in partnership as part of a national approach. We recognise that there are elements of the restrictions that are difficult for individuals and businesses. I pay tribute to the British people and recognise the huge sacrifices that they have already made. That is why it is right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has introduced further support measures, alongside the very extensive support package that he set out to the House earlier in the year.
The measures in these regulations are reasonable and proportionate, given the increased rates of transmission that we are seeing and in the context of our clear commitment to keep education settings open, and businesses open as much as possible. I reassure the House that throughout, as evidence and the science—I use that term in the plural—develop and evolve all the time, we continue to keep that under review, and I approach emerging scientific evidence with an open mind.
I urge hon. Members to join me today in supporting these regulations relating to the covid alert levels and enforcement action, tracing and businesses, recognising the very challenging infection point that this country sits at today, with rising infection and hospitalisation rates. The fight against this virus is certainly not over and we must all continue to play our part in tackling it. These measures seek to do that in a proportionate and clearly understandable way. This House and its collective wisdom are vital to getting it right, and I hope that this evening the House will demonstrate that wisdom and vote for these measures.
The Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1103), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
The Deputy Speaker then put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day.)

Public Health

Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1104), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020, (S.I., 2020, No. 1105), dated 12 October 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1005), dated 17 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1008), dated 17 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
Resolved,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1046), dated 26 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28 September, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)

Public Health

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1029), dated 24 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 82.
Question accordingly agreed to.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Fisheries Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 1 September 2020 (Fisheries Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows:
(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
(2) Proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10.00 pm at this day’s sitting.—(Victoria Prentis.)

Fisheries Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 8 - Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities

‘(1) A sea fish licensing authority may make arrangements for—
(a) any of its fisheries functions, or
(b) any of its product movement functions that are not fisheries functions,
to be exercised on its behalf by another sea fish licensing authority.
(2) Arrangements made by a sea fish licensing authority under subsection (1) in relation to a function do not affect that authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function.
(3) A sea fish licensing authority that exercises functions on behalf of another sea fish licensing authority under subsection (1) may charge that other authority such fees as it considers reasonable in respect of the cost of doing so.
(4) Subsection (1) does not authorise the making of arrangements in relation to any function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation.
(5) The power of a sea fish licensing authority to make arrangements under subsection (1) does not affect, and is not affected by, any other power of the authority to make arrangements relating to the exercise of its functions by other persons on its behalf.
(6) In this section—
“fisheries function” means a function relating to fisheries, fishing or aquaculture;
“product movement function” means a function relating to the movement of fishery products—
(a) into or out of the United Kingdom, or
(b) within the United Kingdom.’—(Victoria Prentis.)
This new clause confers powers on the sea fish licensing authorities to arrange for another such authority to exercise any of their fisheries functions or product movement functions.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Victoria Prentis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clauses 9 and 10.
New clause 1—Sea Fish Industry Authority: powers in relation to parts of UK—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 2(1) (duties of the Authority)—
(a) after the third “of”, insert “(amongst other things)”,
(b) delete the words “as a whole”.
(3) After section 3 (powers of the Authority), insert—
“3A Exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.
The Authority may exercise its functions separately and differently in relation to—
(a) the sea fish industry in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(b) sea fish and sea fish products landed in different parts of the United Kingdom,
(c) sea fish and sea fish products trans-shipped in different parts of the sea within British fishery limits adjacent to different parts of the United Kingdom.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to give the Sea Fish Industry Authority greater flexibility to exercise its functions separately and differently in different parts of the UK. It inserts a new clause into subsection 3, which will enable the Authority to do this.
New clause 2—Sea Fish Industry Authority: delegation of functions—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3A (exercise of functions in relation to different parts of the UK etc.), insert—
“3B Delegation of functions
(1) The Authority may authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf such of its functions and to such extent as it may determine.
(2) The Authority may give to any person authorised under this section to exercise any of its functions—
(a) financial assistance (by way of loan, grant or guarantee),
(b) other assistance including assistance by way of the provision of property, staff or services, for the purposes of those functions.”
(3) The giving of authority under this section to exercise a function does not—
(a) affect the Authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function, or
(b) prevent the Authority from exercising the function itself.”.’
This new clause inserts a new clause which will allow the Authority to authorise any other person to exercise on its behalf any of its functions to the extent determined by the Authority. It will also allow the Authority to give any such person financial and other assistance to do so.
New clause 3—Sea Fish Industry Authority: accounts and reports—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (accounts and reports)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The statement of accounts must specify the total amount of income received in the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone.”,
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—
(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,
(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.’
This new clause is intended to ensure that the Authority reports how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.
New clause 4—Sea Fish Industry Authority: plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 11 (accounts and reports), insert—
“11A Plan relating to allocation of Scottish levies
(1) Before the start of each financial year, the Authority must—
(a) prepare a plan setting out—
(i) an estimate of the total amount of income that the Authority expects to receive during the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone (“Scottish levies”), and
(ii) a description of how the Authority proposes to apply that income in the course of exercising its functions, and
(b) refer the plan to the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1 (“the Scottish committee”) for approval of the Authority’s proposal mentioned in paragraph (a)(ii).
(2) If, as a result of relevant regulations, the Authority estimates that the total amount of income that it expects to receive from Scottish levies during a financial year is greater than the total amount of income that it received from Scottish levies during the previous financial year, the Authority’s plan prepared under subsection (1) for the financial year must include a statement describing how the Authority proposes in particular to apply the additional income from Scottish levies in the course of exercising its functions.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) “relevant regulations”, in relation to a financial year, means—
(i) regulations made by the Authority under section 4(2) during the previous financial year, and
(ii) regulations which the Authority expects to make, and to be confirmed by the Scottish Ministers, under section 4(2) during the financial year,
(b) the total amount of income received by the Authority from Scottish levies during a previous financial year is the total amount of such income as recorded in the Authority’s accounts kept under section 11(1) in respect of that year.
(4) The Authority—
(a) must publish a plan prepared under subsection (1) as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving the Scottish committee’s approval as mentioned in subsection (1)(b), and
(b) may publish the plan in such manner as it considers appropriate.
(5) The Authority must, as soon as reasonably practicable after publishing a plan under subsection (4)—
(a) send a copy of the plan to the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) lay the plan before the Scottish Parliament.
(6) The Authority must have regard to each relevant plan—
(a) in the exercise of its functions, and
(b) in particular, in authorising any other person under section 3B to exercise any of its functions on its behalf.
(7) A person who is authorised by the Authority under section 3B to exercise any of the Authority’s functions must have regard to each relevant plan in the exercise of those functions.
(8) In subsections (6) and (7), “relevant plan”, in relation to the exercise of a function, means—
(a) the latest plan published under subsection (4), and
(b) any earlier plan published under that subsection in so far as it contains a proposal mentioned in subsection (1)(a)(ii) (or, as the case may be, in subsection (2)) to apply income during the financial year in which the function is being exercised.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to ensure the Authority sets out an annual plan that outlines how it intends to apply the levy income it expects to receive. This plan must make comparison to the levy income of the previous year and where the levy income is expected to be higher detail how the Authority proposes to apply the additional income from Scottish levies.
New clause 5—Sea Fish Industry Authority: committee for Scotland—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In schedule 1 (the Sea Fish Industry Authority), in paragraph 16—
(a) before sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(A1) The Authority must appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.
(A2) The committee is to consist of or include persons who are not members of the Authority.
(A3) The Authority must consult the committee on the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland.”,
(b) in sub-paragraph (1), before “committees” insert “other”,
(c) in sub-paragraph (2), for “such committees” substitute “committees appointed under this paragraph”.’
This new clause’s new provisions require the Authority to appoint a committee for the purpose of assisting the Authority in the exercise of its functions in relation to the sea fish industry in Scotland. They additionally require the consultation of this committee on the exercise of the Authority’s functions in relations to Scotland.
New clause 6—Sea Fish Industry Levies: powers in relation to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4 (levies)—
(a) in subsection (2), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(b) in subsection (7), for “Ministers” substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(c) after subsection (8) insert—
“(8A) In this section, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ means—
(a) in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone, the Scottish Ministers,
(b) in any other case, the Ministers.”,
(d) in subsection (9), after “order” in both places where it occurs insert “of the Ministers”,
(e) after subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) Any order of the Scottish Ministers—
(a) under subsection (2) is subject to the negative procedure,
(b) under subsection (7) is subject to the affirmative procedure.
(9B) Before laying a draft Scottish statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (7) before the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers must consult—
(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and
(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.”.
(3) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), in the definition of “the Ministers”, in paragraph (c), after “with” insert “(except in the case of an order under section 4(2) or (7))”.
(4) In schedule 2 (Sea Fish Industry Levies)—
(a) for “Ministers” in each place where it occurs substitute “appropriate Ministerial authority”,
(b) after paragraph 3 insert—
“4 The Scottish Ministers must, before making an order confirming any regulations, consult—
(a) the committee appointed under paragraph 16(A1) of Schedule 1, and
(b) such other persons as they consider appropriate.
5 In this schedule, ‘appropriate Ministerial authority’ has the same meaning as in section 4 of this Act.”.’
The primary purpose of this new clause is to devolve, to the Scottish Ministers, the control of the Scottish aspects of levies imposed by the Authority. Currently, levies imposed by the  Authority require confirmation by the relevant Ministers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland with the agreement of the Scottish Ministers. The new clause intends to ensure that levies imposed in relation to Scotland require confirmation by Scottish Ministers.
New clause 7—Sea Fish Industry Levies: definitions relating to Scotland and the Scottish Zone—
‘(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 14 (interpretation of Part 1), after the definition of “the Ministers” insert—
“‘Scotland’ and ‘the Scottish zone’ have the same meanings as in the Scotland Act 1998 (see section 126(1) and (2) of that Act);”.’
This new clause inserts a new clause which makes consequential new clause to section 14 (interpretation of Part 1) of the 1981 Act by inserting definitions of “Scotland” and “the Scottish zone”.
New clause 11—Safety Regulation Within the Exclusive Economic Zone—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall, after consultation, develop a regulatory regime for fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone with regard to—
(a) adherence to the Torremolinos International Convention for the Safety of Fishing Vessels 1993 and Cape Town Agreement of 2012
(b) regulation of safety of navigation by fishing vessels within the EEZ
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) the regulatory regime shall be agreed with devolved administrations, whose consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and shall come into force no later than 31 December 2022.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) “regulation of safety of navigation” shall include, but not be limited to, regulation of acts by a person in charge of a fishing boat which causes or attempts to cause a collision or risk of collision with another vessel within the EEZ
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a “person in charge of a fishing boat” shall include the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of that vessel.
(5) A person guilty of an offence under regulations made under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(a) imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years,
(b) a fine, or
(c) both.’
The purpose of this new clause is to give the Secretary of State power to make regulations governing the safety of fishing vessels working within the EEZ in accordance with existing treaty obligations.
New clause 12—Safety of Fishing Vessels in the Exclusive Economic Zone—
‘(1) A person in charge of a fishing boat commits an offence if that person uses the vessel to—
(a) harass or impede another vessel within the EEZ, or
(b) endanger the safety of another vessel and/or those crewing it within the EEZ.
(2) For the purposes of this section (1), a “person in charge of a fishing boat” shall include the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) of that vessel.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) shall be responsible for—
(a) monitoring the conduct of vessels within the EEZ, and
(b) passing information to a prosecuting authority.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to—
(c) imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years,
(d) a fine, or
(e) both.
(5) The court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may award compensation for loss of earnings or damage to property caused as a consequence of the offence.
(6) Where a fisheries protection officer, an official of the Maritime Coastguard Agency or a Police Constable has reasonable grounds to believe that an offence has been committed under this section, he shall have power to detain in port any vessel or equipment used in the commission of that offence.
(7) Any property detained under subsection (6) shall not be held for longer than seven days unless authority to extend that period is granted by
(f) a Sheriff in the Sheriff Court in Scotland; or
(g) a judge in the Crown Court in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
(8) Any property held under subsections (6) or (7) shall be liable to forfeiture at the conclusion of any criminal proceedings brought under this section.’
The purpose of this new clause is to give the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) appropriate powers to enforce safety within the limits of the UK’s Exclusive Economic Zone. A person guilty of an offence shall be liable to criminal prosecution and civil proceedings for damage, loss of earnings and injury.
Amendment 2,in clause 1, page1,line12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) The “sustainability objective” is that—
(a) fish and aquaculture activities do not compromise environmental sustainability in either the short or the long term, and
(a) subject to subsection (a) fishing fleets must—
(i) be managed to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and
(ii) have fishing capacity that is economically viable and does not overexploit marine stocks.
(2A) The sustainability objective is the prime objective.’
This amendment makes the sustainability objective the prime fisheries objective and alters the definition of the “sustainability objective” to make other objectives subject to environmental sustainability in the short and long term.
Amendment 57, in clause 1,page1,line14, after “the” insert “short and”.
This amendment would change the ‘sustainability objective’ to require that fish and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in both the short and long term.
Amendment 1, in clause 1,page2,line32, at end insert—
‘(b) seafood landings into United Kingdom ports are increased and maximised; and
(c) that an average of not less than 65% of seafood caught in English waters, across all relevant species, should be landed in English ports.’
This amendment would amend the “national benefit objective” to include a commitment to increase seafood landings into the United Kingdom and create a specific target for English ports.
Government amendments 4 to 11, 36 and 12 to 24.
Amendment 3,in schedule 3, page53,line24, at end insert—
‘Prohibition on fishing boats greater than 100 metres in length in English waters
1A (1) Any sea fishing licence issued by the sea fish licensing authority for England must include a condition prohibiting the use of a fishing boat greater than 100 metres in length in any of the protected areas specified in subsection (2).
(2) The protected areas to which the prohibition in subsection (1) applies are marine conservation zones and marine protected areas as defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add to the list of protected areas in subsection (2).’
This amendment would include in the sea fishing licence conditions a prohibition on using a fishing boat longer than 100 metres in protected areas in English waters.
Government amendments 25 to 35 and 37 to 56.

Victoria Prentis: This Bill marks a really important step forward as we leave the inflexibilities of the common fisheries policy. It puts in place the framework necessary for the UK to operate as a responsible, independent coastal state. It allows us to ensure that we have sustainable fisheries to provide benefits for future generations.
The Bill’s fisheries objectives place sustainability front and centre. Six out of the eight objectives relate to protecting the environment. It is critical that we are able to balance those objectives as we need to. Additional quota we receive following the negotiations will be allocated in a new way, and I am pleased that two consultations on quota distribution were published today. That makes good our commitment in the 2018 White Paper, of which my Secretary of State is particularly proud, having put a lot of work into it himself.
This Bill is the product of collaborative and constructive working across all four Administrations of our nation and I am pleased that all the devolved legislatures have consented to the Bill. It was, unfortunately, however, important to wait until we had that consent before we brought forward further amendments on their behalf and that is why I am slightly embarrassed to say that the Order Paper is full of very technical Government amendments. Many are amendments that the devolved Administrations could have made themselves, but given the pressures on all the parliamentary timetables in the run-up to the end of the transition period, we felt that in a spirit of co-operation we should, if possible, make these changes for them.

Alistair Carmichael: I understand the position with regard to the devolved Administrations, but I do not understand the position with regard to Government amendment 36 and the Channel islands. Why has that been brought to the House at this stage in proceedings?

Victoria Prentis: I will, if I may, come to that very shortly. It is an important point and one that I personally am very interested in, having been on the Select Committee on Justice and written a report on that very subject.
The most substantive changes in the amendments cover provisions that make clear the ability of the devolved Administrations and the Marine Management Organisation to delegate functions between each other, the extension of schedule 10 marine conservation powers to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and amendments to Northern Irish and Scottish statutory instruments to bring them in line with UK and Welsh SIs under schedule 2. The final amendments are needed to implement the international treaty with the Faroe islands.
Government amendment 36 includes a permissive extent clause that will allow the UK Government to legislate for the Crown dependencies to ensure compliance with our international obligations. That follows a great deal of discussion with the Crown dependencies and I recognise that they take their international obligations  seriously. This is a subject I personally have long been very interested in and I have discussed the matter with the Lord Chancellor and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), as well as other Members across the House.
I reassure Members and, indeed, the Crown dependencies, that activation of the permissive extent clause would only ever be used as a last resort and I am looking forward to continuing discussions with the Crown dependencies on that in the next few days and weeks.

Bob Neill: Will the Minister give way?

Victoria Prentis: I would be delighted to give way to my former Chair.

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend does know this, because she was a great servant of the Justice Committee when she was a member: it is not just a question of continuing discussions. As things stand, the Governments and legislatures of both Jersey and Guernsey object. It is not just that they do not think a permissive extent clause is necessary; they object to its inclusion in the Bill. It is truly unprecedented for the Government to insist upon a permissive extent clause without the agreement of the relevant Crown dependencies. Why, even in an emergency, go down this rather provocative step? Why not wait until such time as an emergency arises and let them legislate, as they have indicated they would?

Victoria Prentis: I have nothing but the greatest respect for the Chairman of the Justice Committee, on which I was very proud to serve for so many years. He and I have discussed this very issue before. The Government feel that it is important, given that these are significant matters of international law, that we retain the ability to legislate for the Crown dependencies if they do not show the inclination to do so when needed. We very much doubt that this will be necessary. I am sorry that they are upset by this stand, but I do feel that it is the right thing to do in the circumstances at the moment.
Government amendment 55 repeals provisions of retained EU law concerned with the catching of cod in the North sea, which, as drafted, do not achieve what they were put in place to do.
Seafish is a fantastic UK-wide organisation that promotes the efficiency of the UK seafood industry.

Sally-Ann Hart: Many fishermen, including those in Hastings and Rye who manage the under-10 metre fishing fleet, voted to leave the EU to regain total control over our territorial waters. They are seeking clarity and reassurance on clause 12, and that no foreign vessels will be permitted to fish or be granted licences to fish in the 12 nautical miles off the UK coast. Can the Minister give that reassurance and clarity?

Victoria Prentis: I would be delighted to. The Government have been clear throughout that access to the UK’s territorial seas is out of scope for any fisheries framework agreement with the EU. Any access negotiated with the EU will cover only the UK’s exclusive economic zone, and not the 0 to 12-mile zone. That remains the case.

Emma Hardy: I have had a fair bit of correspondence with the Minister’s Department and I wonder if she will look again at funding for the enforcement vessel. The reply I had from her states was that no funding is available for the enforcement vessel, but surely if she wants to support her hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) in taking back control of our waters, we must ensure that that is enforced.

Victoria Prentis: Enforcement is very important and I will look out for the hon. Lady’s correspondence and ensure she gets a full reply. In our view we have sufficient vessels to control our waters. We cannot reduce risk levels to zero. The size of our EEZ, the potential number of EU and third-country vessels that fish in our waters, and the potential lack of electronic data, mean that this is not feasible. However, we are confident that sufficient capacity is in place to prevent illegal fishing. We take this matter extremely seriously and I would be delighted to work further with her on that.

Sheryll Murray: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Victoria Prentis: If I may I will make a little progress because I know my hon. Friend is speaking later.
Seafish is a fantastic UK-wide organisation that promotes the efficiency of the UK’s seafood industry, and neither I nor—importantly—my counterparts in Wales or Northern Ireland support the amendments on Seafish. Seafish has provided excellent support and information to all the Administrations regarding the impact of the covid pandemic on the seafood supply chain. Seafish delivers the hugely popular national fish and chip shop of the year awards, which this year was won by The Cod’s Scallops—what a name—in Wollaton in Nottinghamshire.
Seafish is able to tailor its work to different priorities. For example, it works to trial new types of sustainable fishing gear for the Scottish fishing industry. It has established and run the well-respected Northern Ireland fishing industry safety group and supported the industries to establish the Aquaculture Industry Wales group. Seafish supports the fishing industry across the UK, regardless of how much each Administration contributes. However much the Scottish Government may protest and dispute it, the Scottish industry receives far more than its fair share in monetary terms of support from Seafish. The amendments pre-empt the findings of a review of Seafish and do not address the impact there would be on the valuable services that it provides for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I remain unconvinced of the need for these amendments.
Amendment 2 seeks to make environmental sustainability the Bill’s prime objective. This version of the Bill has significantly more focus on sustainability than its predecessor, and its objectives are unquestionably much stronger than those of the common fisheries policy. Unlike the CFP, and importantly, those objectives are legally binding on the fisheries administrations through the joint fisheries statement. We have also added the vital and world-leading climate change objective, which has been well received by non-governmental organisations. The bycatch objective addresses the root cause of discarding, rather than just focusing on the symptoms, as the CFP’s discard objective did.
The Government have a proud record on the marine environment. The global target is to protect 10% of marine and coastal areas by 2020; we have exceeded that. Some 25% of UK waters are currently protected, and we are pushing internationally for new global targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s ocean by 2030. It is no accident that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), is present listening to the debate. Her side of the Department and mine work extremely closely to ensure that environmental sustainability is at the heart of everything we do.
The Bill’s fisheries management plans will revolutionise how we manage our fisheries more sustainably by setting out targets and actions for specific areas, stocks and types of fishing. This is a holistic approach that will take the whole ecosystem into consideration.

Jim Shannon: One of our fears, which perhaps the Minister can allay, relates to amendment 42. Wales and Scotland have complete control of those decisions through their devolved Administrations; Northern Ireland does not. Northern Ireland will be guided by the Secretary of State, who will make those decisions. I understand that the Government may consider making the Northern Ireland Assembly at some stage accountable for that issue, which means that they will have control. Is that the intention of the Government, and of the Minister?

Victoria Prentis: I am afraid it is too early to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I look forward to future discussions with him about that. Some of tonight’s amendments do relate to Northern Ireland, but I do not think that he will be surprised by any of them.
I am concerned that those who support the sustainability amendment are losing sight of the importance of the precautionary objective, which will ensure that we maintain and rebuild healthy fish stocks, and indeed the ecosystem objective, which is critical to allow us to take a joined-up approach to protecting our precious marine environment. Those objectives will together help to deliver for sustainable fishing much more than were we to have only the sustainability objective. I am concerned that those who support the amendment would see the other objectives deprioritised.
I am keen to be able to balance environmental, social and economic needs. I am worried that if the amendment is passed, it would mean that, for example, infra- structure projects in ports that might cause a short-term environmental detriment could not be built, which would in turn deprive coastal communities of future economic benefits. Another example is the issue of choke—when one fish quota is set so low that all other fishing in a mixed fishery is effectively prohibited. Over the past two years, if we had not been able to agree with the EU a small quota above scientific advice for cod in the Celtic sea, for example, the choke issue would have led to the closure of many valuable fisheries in the south-west that aim at other species, some of which are certified as sustainable by the Marine Stewardship Council.
With coastal communities in mind, let us move to amendment 1. As we have said, we must have the flexibility to support the social and economic wellbeing  of our coastal communities. Again delivering on a commitment in our White Paper, I am really pleased to announce that the Government have launched a consultation on proposals to strengthen the economic link licence condition for English-registered vessels.

Luke Pollard: A Labour party policy.

Victoria Prentis: It may well be a Labour party policy now, but it was in our 2018 White Paper. The economic link is the route through which we ensure that there is a benefit to the UK from quota fished by UK boats. I am glad to see consensus across the House on this issue; it is clearly a sensible policy. Our consultation proposes a more sophisticated approach than amendment 1 would deliver, and one that I believe will bring higher value benefits to the UK and its coastal communities.
The consultation proposes increasing the landing requirement to 70% for quota species, strengthening the quota donation requirement, or using a combination of the two to meet the economic link requirement. Quota donation directly benefits the under-10-metre fleet, and that brings great benefits to their local ports and communities. Under amendment 1, our vessels would lose the flexibility to land where it is most suitable for their business. That might not always been an English port. Fishermen want to land where they can get the best prices, where it is most convenient or where there is the most appropriate port infrastructure. For example, the Voyager, which is registered in Northern Ireland, is too big to land in any Northern Irish ports and must instead land into Ireland.
Turning to amendment 3, I know that my colleagues and their constituents—indeed, all our constituents—feel strongly about supertrawlers. There is only one UK- registered vessel in the category of over 100 metres in length, but I recognise that there are considerable concerns, for example, about the Lithuanian registered vessel, the Margiris. The Fisheries Bill provides powers to attach conditions, such as the areas that can be fished and the type of fishing gear that can be used, to fishing vessel licences. Foreign vessels permitted to fish in UK waters will have to follow UK rules—including, of course, our conditions. When vessels do not comply with the conditions of their licences, action can be taken to restrict or prohibit their future activities.

Bob Stewart: I was under the impression that supertrawlers were registered and agreed by our own Ministry at the moment; I did not realise that they were not. The Minister implies that they are not.

Victoria Prentis: Part of the problem is that there is no officially agreed definition of a supertrawler, but it is fair to say that we have one UK-registered vessel that is over 100 metres in length.

Jonathan Edwards: Is it not the reality that many of the issues that the Minister is talking about now will ultimately be decided during the trade negotiations with the European Union?

Victoria Prentis: No, I do not think that is the case. When we pass the Fisheries Bill, as I very much hope we will do shortly, there will be no question but that we will be able to impose licence conditions at the end of the transition period.
Pelagic fishing is the main method used by vessels that are over 100 metres in length. This takes place within a water column, and so is unlikely to affect the seabed features, such as reefs and sediment habitats, that most marine protected areas are set up to conserve. Prohibiting these vessels will not protect MPAs from fishing activities such as bottom-trawling, which we know damage them. As such, I am concerned that this amendment would not deal with the most important issues concerning MPAs. Instead, we should focus on preventing damage from the types of fishing that we know effect MPAs, which involve the trawling of nets on the seabed. More than 90 inshore MPAs are now protected from destructive fishing methods.
To date, the common fisheries policy has restricted our ability to implement fisheries management measures in offshore MPAs. To do that, we have required the consent of all the EU member states who fish there. Once we get to the end of this year, we will be free of that restriction and we plan to use the powers in the Bill to put measures in place very quickly. The House will welcome the fact that the Marine Management Organisation will shortly be launching a call for evidence on its assessment of the management measures needed in one inshore and four offshore MPAs. This is the start of engagement in advance of our new policies being put in place early next year. It is important that we develop these policies in conjunction with the industry. Fishermen want to work in partnership with us on this, as was demonstrated by the fishermen who raised concerns about the scallop fishery on the Dogger Bank, which we were then able to close.
Turning to new clauses 11 and 12, on safety, we all recognise that fishing remains a dangerous occupation. We are agreed that it is important that all fishermen have a fair and safe working environment. I would like once again to pay tribute to all those who work at sea and who are at sea now, and I am grateful for the opportunity to talk about this important matter again today. And of course I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has worked so hard in this area, and to the other Members who have, too.
The Government strongly condemn any aggressive actions taken at sea that make safety worse, particularly when this is done deliberately. We have had appalling instances off Shetland, which I think we may be hearing about later, with German-Spanish gillnetters, and in the Baie de Seine with French vessels very recently, over the weekend. Videos of those incidents are truly horrifying, and the fact that there have not been real injuries recently is, quite frankly, a miracle.
I know this is a probing amendment, but I would say that the UK already has the powers to prevent unacceptable or dangerous practices within our territorial waters that cover all UK vessels anywhere in the world. We, like other coastal states, rely on flag states being responsible for the conduct of their vessels in our EEZ. We will explore what further action can be taken with the Marine and Coastguard Agency, the Department for Transport and other interested parties. We will continue to raise issues with the flag state of any vessels concerned, as the MCA did with the German Government in June after the incident in the Shetlands.

Alistair Carmichael: The question is not about territorial waters; it is about operation within the exclusive economic zone, from 12 miles to 200 miles. The incidents off  Shetland demonstrate beyond peradventure that there is no meaningful protection for our fishermen in those areas. Yes, the Minister is right that fishing is a dangerous industry, but it should not be made more dangerous by the sort of recklessness that we keep seeing, and if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has no powers to enforce that, it is only going to get worse. And by the way, it is not a probing amendment.

Victoria Prentis: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification and I look forward to working further with him on the important issue of safety. The MCA raised the particular issue that affected his constituency in June with the German Government and will continue to do so as hard as possible. We have also raised concerns with the French Government following the incidents in the Baie de Seine—perfectly lawful fishing activity by, I think, Scottish vessels—that took place on Sunday night.
In conclusion, this is a good Bill that learns the lessons of the common fisheries policy, and I know that that is recognised across this House. It puts in place a framework to develop sustainable fisheries, which will benefit the nation as a whole as we become an independent coastal state.

Stephanie Peacock: I rise to speak to the amendments that stand in my name and the name of the shadow Environment Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I begin by paying tribute to the six fishers who went to work last year and tragically did not return home.
For the Opposition, today’s debate is focused on two simple questions. First, how committed are this Conservative Government to sustainable fishing, and secondly, do this Government really care about jobs in coastal communities? I believe Labour’s amendments to this Bill make it stronger. Amendment 1 increases seafood landings into UK ports and calls for the majority of fish caught in English waters to be landed in English ports. Amendment 2 makes the sustainability objective the prime objective of the Bill and means that environmental sustainability will be considered in the short and the long term. Amendment 3 bans supertrawlers from vulnerable marine habitats and conservation zones.
Our amendments close the gap between what the Conservatives have promised to do and this Bill, because right now the Fisheries Bill does not make good on the Government’s commitments to fishers, coastal communities or voters concerned about the environment. Today, the Government have announced three consultations into how to split additional quota from EU negotiations, the allocation of quotas for new entrants to the sector and attaching licensing additions to vessels so that British fish is landed in British ports. Those are matters that have been repeatedly voted against in the Bill Committee. We do, of course, welcome their apparent adoption of Labour policy today, but consulting on something is not the same as taking action. We want the Government to make good on their promises to voters, not simply to pay lip service by announcing consultations on the day this Bill is considered on Report.

Sheryll Murray: The hon. Lady is talking about that economic link, but does she not recognise that it was a Conservative Government in 1988 that passed the Merchant  Shipping Act and the European Court of Justice that overturned it? It is not Labour party policy; it was originally a Conservative policy many decades ago.

Stephanie Peacock: I know that the hon. Lady speaks with great experience as chair of the all-party fisheries group, and I am sure that, like me, she will be aware that for every one job created at sea another 10 are created on land—

Sheryll Murray: Eight.

Stephanie Peacock: Eight—I stand corrected. Eight jobs are created on land to every one job at sea. The hon. Lady will see that there is a clear benefit. That is what amendment 1 speaks to.
I would like to speak in more detail about amendment 1, which will help bring investment back to seaside towns and ports. In recent years, coastal communities have faced declining wages and job opportunities. The statistic that I have just quoted is really important, which is that for every one job at sea, eight to 10 jobs are created on land. Labour’s jobs in coastal communities amendment takes this statistic and makes it into policy. Our amendment would bring much needed investment and job opportunities to areas that have struggled under the common fisheries policy and 10 years of austerity.

Emma Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech and say that, like me, she probably doesn’t recall 1988 that well. At one time Hull was one of the world-leading areas for fishing ports and industry, so does she agree that Labour’s amendment could bring some much needed jobs to areas such as Hull?

Stephanie Peacock: I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that she is a hard-working campaigner for the fishing industry that benefits her community in Hull. That is why we believe that landing seafood caught in British waters in British ports will help to level up our coastal community. It will support jobs not just on boats, but in landing, processing and onward transportation.
With the sustainability objective, there is still time to seize the chance offered by amendment 2 to put in place fisheries legislation that begins to reverse biodiversity decline. In the Conservative election manifesto, voters were promised
“a legal commitment to fish sustainably”.
By the Government’s own admission, we will not be able to achieve the 2020 target for the good environmental status for many years
“unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures.”

Ian Paisley Jnr: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the important things we must do to sustain our fishing communities is to ensure that our ports and landing areas are improved? There should be additional support for those areas so that we really can benefit from an increase in our seafaring catch.

Stephanie Peacock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his important point. I am sure he will be interested to know that the British Ports Association does indeed support Labour’s amendments this evening. That is because Labour’s amendments would ensure that fisheries management decisions are made through the lens of environmental sustainability, which will result in long and short-term benefits. It will result in a more resilient and productive marine ecosystem and lead to increased long-term catches, industry profits and benefits for coastal communities. Will the Minister give an assurance tonight, on the Floor of the House, that decisions made in relation to fisheries management will not compromise environmental sustainability in the short and long term, which, as she knows, is set out in the Bill?
Let me move on to amendment 3, which prohibits vessels greater than 100 metres in length from marine conservation zones and protected areas in English waters. These were defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. A Greenpeace investigation has revealed that, last year, supertrawlers, industrial vessels longer than 100 metres that hoover up hundreds of tonnes of fish a day, spent nearly 3,000 hours fishing in parts of UK waters that are supposed to be protected. These areas were created with the purpose of safeguarding vulnerable marine habitats and iconic species such as dolphins, yet in the first six months of 2020, supertrawler activity in marine protected areas was almost double that of the whole of last year.

Taiwo Owatemi: Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister why the UK Government have called for the global community to increase protection of world oceans by up to 30% by 2030 when they have shown a reluctance to follow through with their commitments by supporting a ban on supertrawlers fishing in marine protected areas?

Stephanie Peacock: I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. She is right: the Government like to call themselves a global ocean champion, but we want that same commitment back home, because at present our MPA network is nothing more than lines on a map. Our amendment 3 does just that.

Jonathan Edwards: I strongly support amendment 3, but I am sure the hon. Lady will understand why, as a Welsh MP, I cannot vote for an England-only amendment, although I understand why it is England-only. May I implore her to ask her colleagues in Cardiff to bring forward similar measures for Wales, to protect Welsh waters?

Stephanie Peacock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have tried to make our amendments devolution-friendly, but we hope that our colleagues in the devolved Administrations will see merit in them.
Labour’s amendments are backed by Greenpeace, the Marine Conservation Society, Greener UK and the British Ports Association, to name but a few. I urge every Member of the House to think very carefully before they vote today about whether they will be voting to support more jobs in coastal communities, to protect marine habitats and to ensure the longevity of our fishing industry, because that is what the Labour party will be voting for.

Neil Parish: It is a great pleasure to speak in this historic debate. After 40 years, we can now look at a fishing policy for the United Kingdom, and it is a great moment. I sat in the European Parliament for 10 years, and I do not think many in this House, whether they liked the common agricultural policy or not, would stand up and support the common fisheries policy, because it was not a great success. This is the moment to rectify many of the wrongs that happened. As I have said before in the Chamber, there is no doubt that when we went into what was the Common Market back in the 1970s, the fishing industry paid a heavy price, and it is time to put that right. Not only was the share of fish wrong for United Kingdom fishermen, but the policy also saw millions of tonnes of healthy fish being discarded over the years. We now have the opportunity to put that right.
I very much welcome the Bill. The Government will probably be delighted that I am fully supporting them tonight; I will make no further comment on that. I support Government new clause 8, because we need to bring back control of our waters, so that we can catch more fish and manage it more sustainably. We also need to remember that many fish stocks move between national waters, and because there is common access to them, they are at risk of being over-exploited. We can do much more to manage this as an independent coastal state than we could when we were part of the common fisheries policy.
I think we can all agree that the common fisheries policy was not ideal. It was cumbersome and slow, and getting 26 member states to agree to any changes in policy was almost impossible. Outside the common fisheries policy, we can shut down places that are being overfished more quickly, like Norway, and open up other fishing grounds that can be exploited. I am glad that Ministers have been closely following the way that Norway approaches its agreements. We have signed an agreement with the Norwegians, which shows that this can be done; there is only the mere detail of signing the agreement with the EU, but that is proving a little difficult at the moment. Each year, our UK fishing fleet lands £32 million-worth of fish from Norwegian waters, so this is an excellent start.
We eat a great deal of cod in this country, some of which we catch and much of which we import. We have to ensure that we keep our export markets, because we export much of the fish we catch. In coastal communities like mine—we have a little coastline in Seaton, Branscombe and Beer; it is not massive, but it is there—people expect to see great benefits from leaving the common fisheries policy, and we need to see that turned into a physical reality. The Government are right to drive a hard bargain on fishing in these negotiations, because it is something that people really care about. We said in our manifesto that we would bring back our sovereign waters and the fish that come with it. It is socially and economically important to see the regeneration of our coastal communities after Brexit.
Our fishing sector employs over 25,000 people. Around 18,000 work in the fish-processing industry, which is important. It is important to enhance the fish processing industry and we have a great need to market this great fishthat we catch. We have the opportunity to improve our dietary habits and eat a little more different fish. Many of those can be caught in Cornwall, and even those of us who live in Devon would be very happy to buy some Cornish fish.
Most of our fisheries are small family businesses. Over 80%of them employ fewer than five people. We can grow the sector with access to more fish and good reciprocal deals. Lots of people say that the fishing industry is not important, but I believe that it is very important to this country because we are a coastal nation. It is interesting that we can and will eat more fish. The more we have control over our fishing waters, the more interest there will be in eating fish. People are becoming more and more interested in the food they eat, and fish will be very much part of that.
The UK has a large fishing zone compared with many of our continental neighbours. Under the common fisheries policy, EU fishermen benefit hugely from reciprocal accessto UK waters. In 2015, for example, EU vessels caught some 383,000 tonnes in UK waters, raising some £484 million in revenue. In the same year, UK vessels caught only 111,000 tonnes in EU member states’ waters, raising £114 million, so there is a great benefit to leaving the common fisheries policy. EU vessels benefited by a ratio of 6:1under the CFP. I do not think anyone could believe that that is fair. We need to rebalance this and reduce EU vessels’ access to a more sustainable level. We are an independent coastal state. We reclaim our waters, we reclaim the fish and then we sit down and negotiate, under our rules and regulations, what access there may or may not be to European vessels.
When we leave the common fisheries policy at the end of this year, we will have control over our waters. This will be good for our marine environment and good for local fishing industries and coastal communities, who will benefit from a greater catch, especially for our under- 10 metre fleet.
The Government have been wise to look at the Norway modelwhen it comes to fisheries because Norway has far greater control over its waters and acts quickly to shut them down if they are being over-fished. The Fisheries Bill is therefore a great opportunity to ensure that we can operate a more dynamic fisheries management system. The Bill is also a significant opportunity to deliver a much needed reversalof the fortunes of coastal communities and small-scale fishers,and I greatly welcome the direction of travel of our DEFRA Ministers. I also look forward to being able to help the sea anglersof this country and make sure that they have access to fish, because they are a huge economic benefit to the fishing industry but also to recreational fishing.
I welcome the Bill tonight.

Deidre Brock: I rise to speak to new clauses 1 to7 and amendment 57 tabled by the Scottish National party.
It is notable that when Brexit negotiations ran into trouble recently the first concession that the Prime Minister’s hand-picked negotiatorreached for was fishing. Straight off the bat, fishing was first to be sacrificed. It will be for a few years at first, but there will be more, step after step, until the promises that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made to foreign fleets will be realised. Their access to our waters will be assured.
The fact that the PM picked this negotiator and, one has to assume, gave him his instructions, shows that the attitude that the fishing industry is expendablegoes right to the top of the Tory party and right to the heart of the UK Government. Given the impact a no-deal  exit would have on the industry, getting a deal is essential, but in order to get a deal, this Government look willing to sell out the industry. Heads and the fishing industry loses; tails and the fishing industry loses also.

Sheryll Murray: Does the hon. Lady accept that under the Scottish nationalist policy of staying in the EU, she would take Scottish fishermen back into the common fisheries policy against their will?

Deidre Brock: I think the hon. Lady is well aware of the SNP’s policy towards the re-entry of an independent Scotland into the EU, but I remind her that the Scottish Government have called the CFP
“the EU’s most unpopular and discredited policy”,
so we would certainly be starting negotiations from that point.
The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations sent out a briefing in advance of the Second Reading debate in which it said:
“If the Government backs down on its promises to the UK fishing industry, many of the objectives that the Fisheries Bill is aiming to achieve will be impossible.”
I do not share the optimism about the Bill in the first place, but I do share the concern about the impact on the fishing communities being sold out by a UK Government once again—sold out to get a deal on the way in and sold out to get a deal on the way out.
Brexiteers relied heavily on the fishing argument during the referendum, promising that leaving the EU would produce a “sea of opportunity”. That was only ever going to be for some of the fleets, and I fear that it will turn out to be nonsense for all of them. The repeated promises of this Government to our fishing communities over years that Brexit meant taking back full control of the seas have turned out to be as empty of delivery as the emergency Brexit ferry companies were empty of ferries. Chief negotiator David Frost confirmed that the UK Government were offering a three-year transition period for EU fishers in UK waters on top of the four and a half years since the referendum, but we still do not know what follows that. It beggars belief that we are in the closing months of the transition period and we are still negotiating terms with our nearest and most important seafood export market. We still have no outline of what those negotiations look like or what the possible deals might be. Fishing communities that rely on exports for the finances to keep their communities alive are being left hanging, with no deal or no prospect of a deal, massive bureaucracy if they now want to export, and huge queues at the border posts with only some vague promises that their product might be prioritised by customs. As an Ealing comedy, it lacks the humour and the humanity but it certainly has the farce in spades.
At the very least, we once again ask the Government to take this opportunity to give some assistance to our Scottish fishing communities and right an injustice that has been hanging around for a very long time and where they might do a little to make amends. New clauses 1 to 7 make the case effectively for devolving control of the Scottish aspect of levies imposed by Seafish to Scottish Ministers. It has long been the view of the Scottish  Government that the current arrangements for the Seafish levy are not fit for purpose in Scotland and have had an ultimately detrimental effect on the promotion of our fine Scottish seafood. The inequity of the red meat levy has taken years to be resolved. It is more than time that the issue was finally resolved and management transferred to the Scottish authorities, as would be consistent with devolved competencies.
The new clauses would enable Scottish Ministers to further support the industry and promote the quality and excellence of our Scottish seafood products. While we will press only new clause 3 to a vote, I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to revise their opposition to these very reasonable processes. New clause 3 brings transparency to the levy finances and the details of their distribution across the UK. Transparency seems to me to be a good thing. Surely no one could argue against that, and I can see no reason why the Government continue to resist it. After all, the Minister knows that a commitment was made at the time of the Smith commission that the Scottish and UK Governments would work together to explore whether to revise arrangements in respect of levy-raising using the specific examples of red meat and seafood. Now the red meat levy problem is finally on its way to being sorted, but I am afraid that the commitment to properly explore arrangements for seafood has not been followed through on. There has been no such work and no such exploration to date of those legal and practical arrangements, which is why I would like to see on the record today a commitment to do that, with a timeline to follow shortly thereafter for the long-promised internal and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs review of sea fish, which would take on board all the matters covered in my amendments.

Liz Saville-Roberts: One point that I think is important to many in the Scottish fleet, as it certainly is to the Welsh fleet, is to see an increase in the reserve quota that would allow greater flexibility for our fleet. We are keen to see a provision in the Bill that would seek assurance that in the future that will be the case.

Deidre Brock: All from the devolved authorities would like to see that, and the hon. Lady will recall that at the recent roundtable discussion between the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation the Minister said that a consultation will be taking place on the distribution of quotas between the devolved authorities. We are certainly looking forward to that. [Interruption.] And it has been launched today—good to hear.
New clause 3 would also mark a useful first step—long overdue—to giving effect to the agreed commitment in the Smith commission report. Fiscal transparency and accountability and a proper and thorough review of current arrangements would help determine whether an equitable share is being received and how to address any issues. This Tory Government may have forgotten the commitments made as part of that process to bolster devolution and strengthen Scotland’s powers, but we have not.
The Secretary of State made it clear the last time we debated this Bill that the involvement of the devolved nations had greatly improved it, but as that example shows, and as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor  Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has mentioned, the Bill is simply still not good enough. It is a hastily cobbled-together mess, as we see when we look at the dozens of technical amendments tabled by the Government in a frantic attempt to tidy it up. I feel sorry for the civil servants who have had to operate under these conditions. We are left simply wishing that the Government had listened to the devolved Administrations when they were saying that we needed an extension before leaving the EU or, even better, when they argued against leaving the EU altogether. Here we are being asked to agree skeletal framework legislation simply to cover this Government’s intransigence and their British exceptionalist view—it is a fig leaf for the absence of a realpolitik attitude in Whitehall, and a failure to appreciate the situation that the UK found itself in before the pandemic arrived or the massively worse situation that unfortunately it finds itself in now.
We do know, but I will remind the House, that the law of the sea will be the fall-back position if, as looks increasingly and disturbingly possible, we end up in the worst of all possible worlds, with no deal. I know that some people have laid heavy bets on that scenario and stand to make a lot of cash from it, but massive wealth in the hands of some is no substitute for a decent living for many.
The Prime Minister, in his best Bertie Wooster chant, wants to, “Get Brexit done”, as if there is a crock waiting for us at the end of a rainbow, but even if we get a deal done, we have no certainty of the position for fisherfolk. As I mentioned, the Minister has announced just now that a consultation is being launched that will debate how any additional quota will be divided between the four nations, but that is if any additional quota is there to be shared. As the scientific advice and information from the Marine Stewardship Council makes clear, stocks are not in the best of health, so there may not be extra quota to share over that three-year extension to the transition period. Equally, the Government have not outlined what they intend to do about the large chunks of England’s quotas vested in foreign vessels or what they think might be a sensible way forward for reallocating those quotas over the next few years. Will it be the fishing equivalent of a Government land grab, or will things just be left well alone, so that the “sea of opportunity” remains nothing more than a “Narnia” tale to be recounted in years to come. The referendum was a couple of Tory Prime Ministers and two snap elections ago, but there still has not been anything worked out about how to deal with the fall-out. The light is dimming on our EU membership and only now, after this painfully long journey, is the question being asked about what to do. We recognise that some sort of legislative framework is needed; I should speak here to amendment 57 before I conclude. We propose inserting the word “short” before “long term” to ensure that sustainability is not an objective that can be kicked down the road and not dealt with until later, but must be worked on at all times. The UK, it must be admitted, is not achieving a sustainable fisheries management, so the amendment would encourage the UK Government to take into account sustainability when carrying out their duties. Our hope is that this will be seen as the constructive proposal that it is meant to be.

Anthony Mangnall: If the hon. Lady has such a concern about sustainability, will the SNP start addressing the Scottish salmon fishermen?

Deidre Brock: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is something the Scottish Government are taking in hand at the moment.
We recognise that some sort of legislative framework is needed and we have all heard the fears that there might not be time, even now, to put in place all the fishing legislation that is required, but my view is that the Bill is not what is needed. There is a shortfall between the great expectations that fishers and producers were fed by this Government and the deliverables. It is not enough, it is not in time and it does not do what it says on the tin.
Scotland is ill served by this Tory Government and their failures, but so is England. There was a time when Ministers would resign for getting it so badly wrong, but these days it seems that the default position is finding someone to blame, preferably someone in Brussels.

Sheryll Murray: It is an absolute pleasure to follow the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). I have got some news for her: she said the light was going out on our EU membership, but as far as I am aware, we are in a transition period and the light switch has already been turned off. It is also a pleasure to speak during consideration of this historic Bill on Report. The Bill does provide a framework for fisheries management after sovereignty of this valuable United Kingdom resource is, rightfully, restored to this House.
I want to address some of the amendments. It is disappointing that the SNP has tabled such a divisive set of new clauses, using the valuable platform of the Sea Fish Industry Authority to peddle its nationalist agenda. Perhaps we should remember that Seafish is based in two locations, Edinburgh and Grimsby. Board meetings may be held at either office, or at other locations in the UK. Seafish covers the whole UK and has served the fishing industry well through its current structure. I urge every hon. Member to reject these divisive new clauses.

Deidre Brock: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sheryll Murray: No, I will not. Other people want to speak.
Other new clauses have been tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I apologise for speaking to them before he has done so, but he is after me on the call list. I know he is well intentioned, given his interest in promoting safety aboard fishing vessels. He has been a strong voice for fishing safety for many years. Owners of UK-flagged fishing vessels are responsible for basic health and safety on board their boats, safe working practices and safe equipment. The Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997 include measures to encourage improvement in safety and health of workers at sea. As far as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I have got this wrong—licensing will be able to control the terms on which vessels from other member states, or other nations, because there will not be member states as far as we are concerned, can access the UK 200-mile or median line limit. It will also ensure that the boats that fish in those waters are responsible, as is the behaviour of the skippers and crew of those vessels.
The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland are really well intentioned, but I will not be able to support them, because we already have such provisions in place. The Bill provides the structure for the UK to manage fisheries responsibly after we have restored control over our 200-mile or median line limit—our exclusive economic zone. As someone who has suffered the direct consequence of a fatal accident at sea, and who, as a result, has a real interest in fishing vessel safety, I gently say to him that I do not believe that this is the right place for his amendments; perhaps he would like not to move them this evening.
I turn to the official Opposition’s amendments. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations says:
“The NFFO supports the sustainability objective”
but believes that this should not be given
“primacy…over all other fisheries objectives”,
as this would be
“a fundamental impediment to practical and effective fisheries management.”
Paul Trebilcock from the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation says that
“our fishermen have no interest in bankrupting the fish stocks upon which the next generation will depend. As an industry, we have been proactive in seeking a Bill that recognises the real demands of modern fisheries management. This includes supporting conservation priorities such as bycatch reduction and managing stocks under climate change, as well as advocating for a system that can allow for the flexibility and adaptations required to deliver on these goals.”
The NFFO believes that a national landing requirement, although well intentioned, would cut across the ability of fishing vessels to land on to the most profitable market, and potentially generate unintended consequences. It welcomes the Government’s commitment to launch a consultation reviewing the economic link conditions. I genuinely feel that British fishermen will want us to ensure that the flagships that were allowed to stay on the British fishing vessel register through the Factortame case are gradually removed.
Industry representatives have welcomed the removal in Committee of the amendments made to this Bill in the other place. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has agreed to consult on these matters, as it will enable genuine fishermen to give their views. I urge this House to reject these amendments in any vote tonight. Although well intentioned, they were introduced in the other place and the fishermen felt that they were unnecessary.
I look forward to the moment when we take back control of UK waters, for which I have been campaigning for almost 40 years—and, yes, I am an old lady. I pay tribute to the late Tom Hay and John Ashworth, who campaigned alongside me at that time, as well as David Pessell from Plymouth Trawler Agents and his wife Alison. I genuinely believe that the future is bright for the fishing industry that I have been so close to for many years.
I urge our negotiators again—as I did on Second Reading—to hold firm in the negotiations. We must not accept anything less than annual negotiations and priority access to fish for our fishermen. I would like to point out that what people tend to misconvey when they talk about what was reported in the press as three years’  transition is the period of reducing quotas for other member states and gradually increasing quotas for UK fishermen. That is an important fact that I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith selectively missed out.
I had the privilege of naming the first electric passenger vessel, e-Voyager, in my local boatyard yesterday. The owner of Plymouth Boat Trips started out more than 20 years ago as Fish ‘N’ Trips, a small business founded on a lifelong passion for fishing. His name is Ben Squire, and with a £1,000 loan and a £500 grant from the Prince’s Trust, at the age of 21, Ben purchased a boat and took the first mackerel and deep sea fishing trips from Plymouth. He now has a sizeable fleet of fishing boats and passenger vessels. I look forward to the future for this great UK-wide industry, and I hope to see many more people like Ben proudly taking the fishing industry from strength to strength in the years to come.

Alistair Carmichael: I rise to speak to new clauses 11 and 12, standing in my name. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). I listened very carefully to her remarks, as I always do on matters related to the fishing industry, and I absolutely understand her background and family history, which has brought her to a very close interest in fishing safety over the years. I am grateful to her—enormously grateful to her—for accepting that I am well intentioned. I would hope, as I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on fisheries, of which she is the chair, that she would have expected nothing less.
I am afraid I was not entirely persuaded by the hon. Lady’s reasoning, however, and on this occasion I will stick with the views of the representatives of the fishing industry, who say that amendments such as new clauses 11 and 12 are necessary. I say to the Minister, who has obviously been told that they are probing amendments, that they are no such thing. Unless I am able to hear any reason or persuasive arguments as to why I should not push them to a vote, then with your agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will certainly seek to test the views of the House on new clause 12 at least.
The hon. Lady’s proposition was an interesting one. She said that we should rely on the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and also on the licensing provisions. I am actually a great fan of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It is legislative poetry. A whole body of case law and regulations have been born and grown up out of it, of which I am not always a great admirer, but the Act itself is very simple.

Sheryll Murray: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Alistair Carmichael: I will just explain this to the hon. Lady, and then I will give way to her.
The Act creates an obligation to provide a safe system of work for those who come into contact with it. It is a measure that has to be applied in a way that is reasonable and proportionate. I cannot imagine that any safe system of work would deal with the sort of piracy we have seen off the west coast of Shetland in relation to Pesorsa Dos, which I will speak about in a second or two. With all due respect to the hon. Lady, it seems to me that, in seeking to rely on the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and licensing conditions, she is in effect saying—or  advancing an argument that would be akin to saying—that we do not require the Road Traffic Acts and the offences of dangerous or careless driving simply because we license cars, but if the hon. Lady wishes to intervene, I will give way.

Sheryll Murray: I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. I actually mentioned the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Health and Safety at Work) Regulations 1997, under which a massive number of M notices—merchant shipping notices—are published, meaning that vessels have to be kept and operated in a safe way. If we license other vessels from other nations, we could insist, as part of their licencing, that they behave in a responsible way and that the vessels meet the same requirements as UK vessels.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Lady advances an excellent argument in support of my new clause 11, but as it happens, I am going to press new clause 12. The difficulty she has is that I do not hear any argument from her about enforcement, so when we are in the exclusive economic zone, if these regulations or licensing requirements are breached, how do we enforce them? At present, there is no power for the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to do that, but that would be a sensible and reasonable thing to do, and it would, I suggest, be entirely appropriate given the stated aim of taking back control.

Sheryll Murray: I think it is the Marine Management Organisation that enforces licensing but in his area, the Scottish fisheries protection agency goes out on board the vessels.

Alistair Carmichael: There will be no provision in licensing that will deal with the dangerous and reckless conduct that we have seen west of Shetland, and that we will see in other territorial waters, I think, in the next few months as the political heat is turned up in relation to fishing and the changes that are going to come in on 1 January.
I want to make a couple of points before dealing in detail with the reason why new clauses 11 and/or 12 are necessary. The first is on Government amendment 36, which I raised with the Minister in her opening comments. I understand the reasons why a lot of late Government amendments to the Bill have come and I have sympathy with them, knowing the to and fro that there has been between the Minister’s Department and the various devolved Administrations, but the Bill is not new. We had the Bill go through all its stages in this House—certainly the Public Bill Committee—once already. It started then in the other place and it has been through Committee here, so introducing at this late stage—when, frankly, there is little opportunity for meaningful scrutiny of it—a provision that strikes at a fairly important constitutional point in relation to the Channel Islands as dependent territories requires further explanation from the Minister.
Essentially, the difficulty is that saying that this is just a backstop power is one thing, but the Government giving themselves a backstop power that can be used unilaterally—possibly without any consultation, although I accept that that is unlikely—takes us down a very difficult and dangerous constitutional path. I think that this requires greater scrutiny than this House is able to give it today, because once I have given way to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), I will not say much more about it.

Bob Neill: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point.
Is there not a further difficulty in that the Crown dependencies have jurisdiction over their territorial waters, so for us to legislate unilaterally for something that they have indicated since the summer that they do not wish us to do would be a most dangerous and, frankly, entirely novel precedent? It is difficult to see how that could ever by justified.

Alistair Carmichael: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience of Government is that there are issues that sometimes just dot around the civil service waiting for a Minister who is prepared to pick them up and give them a go. This issue is not new. I know that the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), faced a similar dilemma and reached a very different conclusion. I strongly suspect that this has been slipped in at the last minute because officials somewhere wanted to advance it. The Minister should have resisted this. I say to her gently that this will not just be nodded through when the Bill gets to the other place. It will require and get more substantial scrutiny there.
As the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who spoke for the Scottish nationalists, said at the start of her speech, there is a lot of uncertainty around the fishing industry at the moment, and that uncertainty is very damaging. It is worth reminding the House that the reason for that uncertainty was the decision by the former Prime Minister, and the current Prime Minister, to enter into a withdrawal agreement that put an agreement on fishing into the political declaration. When that decision was made by the former Prime Minister, I remember that the hon. Members for South East Cornwall and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and others, were rather unhappy about it, as was I, and we are now reaping the whirlwind of that somewhat ill-advised decision.
I will now turn to new clauses 11 and 12. One of the things that still delights me about speaking in this place is the opportunity to make the Chair feel very uneasy when we discuss matters to which the sub judice rule might apply. I know that the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers would get very excited, and if I were to do that they would be jumping up and down as if there were springs in their shoes. You may sit easy, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I will not be speaking tonight about something that is sub judice, although it absolutely should be. Indeed, if we had right the balance between law and justice, it certainly would be sub judice, and the skipper of the Pesorsa Dos, a Spanish gillnetter that was operating 30 miles to the west of Shetland in June, would be awaiting trial for an offence such as the one that I have put before the House in new clause 12.
Constituents of mine were crewing the Alison Kay, and they were operating in grounds that have long been used as fishing grounds for the Shetland fleet, close to an area where the skipper of the Spanish trawler had just shot his gillnets. Gillnets run to several miles long and are left in for a long time, and they are a particularly unsustainable mode of fishing. The skipper of the Pesorsa Dos saw the Alison Kay trawling nearby, and because it is a much bigger vessel, he essentially tried to muscle the Alison Kay out of those fishing grounds.  That was bad enough in itself, but what followed was utterly culpable and reckless. The skipper shot a rope into the water in a deliberate attempt to foul the propeller of the Alison Kay. Goodness only knows what might have happened to that boat and its crew if he had been successful.
That was not the first instance of that sort—there had been tension in those fishing grounds for a long time—but it was the first time that it got videoed, and those videos were then posted online, and people were able to see it for themselves. I suggest that all right hon. and hon. Members look at that video, because it is absolutely chilling.
As the local Member of Parliament I raised the issue with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which said, “This is dreadful, this is dangerous, but we can do nothing about it. It happened outside our jurisdiction, which stops at the 12-mile limit.” The case was then passed to the German Government, because the Spanish trawler was flagged in Germany.
I have a letter from 1 January from the Dienststelle Schiffssicherheit in the German Government, and as an exercise in legal adjudication, it fails some of the most basic tests. It gives the other side of an argument, but the German Government enforcement authorities have looked only at the case put to them by the owners and operators of Pesorsa Dos, and they made no effort to hear the case from the Alison Kay. As far as they are concerned, the matter is closed. The Minister said that the Department had been in correspondence with the German Government, but the letter I have is from 1 July. If the Minister would be prepared to, I invite her to publish the correspondence between our Government and the German Government, because I think that a bit of transparency and daylight is needed.
These vessels are commercial operations. It goes without saying there is a lot of money involved, and I am pretty sure that the answer to the question, “How is this allowed to happen?” is a simple one: the skipper of the Pesorsa Dos did what he did because he knew that he could and that he could get off with it. When he tried the same thing—or something similar; I do not know exactly what the case was—in Irish waters, they detained the vessel, took it into court, and it was tied up. That is what really concentrates the mind, because if the ship is tied up in the harbour it is not out on the sea earning money for its owners. That is the sort of power and control that we need to have and to exercise on behalf of our fishermen and our fleet in our exclusive economic zone.
That is why I hope the Minister will have something more positive to say when she comes to reply to this debate. We know that this is a problem. It has been a problem for a long time, it will continue to be a problem and it will get worse. Eventually, a Government Minister will stand at that Dispatch Box to table a clause of the sort that I have tabled tonight, but he or she will be doing that because there has been loss of life or serious loss of property, because the things that we know can happen will have happened. Let us not wait until that point. We know what the problem is. Let us act on it and let us sort it now.

Andrea Jenkyns: If I may take a few moments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have just received a text message alerting me to the news that a good friend of mine, a guitarist and former band  member, has just died following a two-day battle with coronavirus. I send my love and prayers to his wife and pay tribute to a gentle giant, an awesome guitarist and a true family man. Rest in peace.
More than four years have passed since the referendum vote that set out the future of our nation as a full, sovereign Union. That has dominated the political debate in this Chamber and outside the Westminster bubble. One only has to take a look at the map of the leave vote to understand the impact of the coastal communities in deciding the future of our nation.
The sea and our insularity as an island have always been fundamental traits of our history and our identity as British, English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish. Because of our geography, we have always had to find a way to connect with other nations by crossing the seas and the channel, to boost our trade with nearby nations and to attract the best projects and talent from around the world. We had to navigate. We would not be such an outward-looking nation if we were not an island. While my constituency is not directly on the sea, I was born just a few miles away from the beautiful Yorkshire coast, and my granddad Walter Naulls was a fisherman over in Hull. I am sure if Walter were alive today, he would be cheering on and welcoming this Bill and the opportunity to take back control again of our waters.
In Yorkshire, whether in Whitby, Morley and Outwood or the dales, we all know the importance of fisheries to our economy. Our seafood sector is worth £1.4 billion per year and employs 12,000 people. British ships land around 400,000 tonnes of fish in UK waters, while EU states’ vessels annually land almost double that in our waters. Thanks to Brexit, we will have access to and be in full control of our waters on our own terms, able to regulate access by third countries. Our fishing communities will not be left behind and we will grow thanks to this legislation.
This is an extremely ambitious deal, which offers only a glimpse of what we were able to do when leaving the EU. As a strong advocate for animal rights, I would like to commend my hon. Friend the Minister and her predecessors for the strong environmental approach that they have taken to this Bill. Adding references to the national benefit objective, along with the powers to make further provision on aquatic and animal health and the Government’s commitment to high standards, are extremely encouraging changes. The Bill will not only protect our fishermen, their families and the communities that rely on them but protect our marine fauna, creating a strong and legally binding framework that can leave the environment in a better state than we inherited, thanks to the quota levels set for fishing.
The objectives set out by the Bill for the fisheries policy authorities, particularly on sustainability, the ecosystem, the bycatch and the scientific evidence, are a sign that leaving the EU does not mean compromising, but rather enhancing, our environmental and animal welfare standards. Taking back control of our waters means maintaining the health of our seas, and the Bill offers a unique opportunity to be world leaders on sustainability, which is vital for our oceans and for future generations. I was pleased to read this positive feedback from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations:
“The Bill is an important and necessary step towards managing our fisheries in ways that can bring real advantages to our coastal communities.”
The Bill not only enables us to take back control of our waters as a sovereign nation but gives control back to the fishing communities, with a strong focus on devolution. Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh boats will be licensed by Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh Ministers. The Bill gives more powers to the devolved Governments, who will be responsible for the positive trickle-down effect on coastal communities. I believe that, outside the EU, the Government are paving the way forward for others to follow. With its focus on communities, no compromises on animal welfare and the protection of our economy and, importantly, our sovereignty, the Bill is a clear indication of what taking back control really means.

Matt Rodda: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this important debate. I would like to offer my condolences to the hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) on her loss. I would like to speak in support of the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and the shadow Front Bench, and I want to focus my remarks on the opportunity for supporting coastal communities and the importance of protecting the vulnerable marine environment.
Our coastal communities have been neglected for far too long. Austerity and long-standing regional inequality have hit these communities hard. Last year, residents in coastal areas, shockingly, earned £1,600 less than people inland. The Labour amendment recognises these issues and calls on the Government to support those communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said earlier, landing more fish in UK ports will generate significant new jobs inland. One million pounds of fish landed in UK ports can create up to 76 new jobs, which is a significant gain in many areas. Surely, at this time when the Government are saying that they want to “build back better”, this amendment is worth further consideration. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) will consider this approach and take some time to mull it over. It is important that the Government listen to the needs of all our communities, including those facing real economic challenges, both inland in seats such as mine and in coastal areas.
I would like to turn to the serious economic and environmental issues that have been raised in today’s debate. It is important to consider the sheer scale of some of the boats that we have heard about. These supertrawlers are more than 100 metres in length and they pull huge nets that can stretch out over a mile across the sea. These boats have been found to be fishing in vulnerable protected areas with fragile marine ecosystems containing rare flora and fauna. I want to pay tribute to the work that has been carried out by Greenpeace to uncover the full scale of this issue. These boats have been seen to present a severe risk, and it is now time for us to consider its full impact. In the first six months of 2020, supertrawlers spent more than 5,500 hours fishing in protected areas. This is a significant issue, and I hope that the Minister will consider it fully.
Given this evidence, and given the Conservatives’ own manifesto commitments in this area, it is now time for further consideration of these environmental risks, and I urge Ministers to take some time to rethink their  position and to look at the amendments from the Labour Front Bench. As was said earlier, the environmental and economic issues in fishing sit together. There is a long-term interest in preserving our valuable and very vulnerable coastal waters, and it is time for the Government to listen, consider the evidence and think again. I urge Ministers to take a reasonable approach to this issue.

Scott Mann: I will keep my remarks short. I am getting quite used to having debates on fishing and fisheries policy—we seem to discuss it here every week or every couple of weeks at the moment, and long may that continue. This Bill is in a much better place than it was when it entered the House, and I support all the Government’s amendments.
I would like to focus my remarks on three specific areas, to which I hope the Minister can respond. The first is the fisheries management plans. There is a lot of discussion about what they might look like, who will implement them, what powers they will have and, more importantly, whether they will have flexibility to diverge in different parts of the country where we have different fish species and to adjust to them. I ask the Minister to consider that.
The Government are collecting evidence on remote electronic monitoring, which they are considering. Will they also look at the possibility of having a slick fisheries app that logs catches as they are caught, to support sustainable fishing and promote quick turnaround, so that our restaurants and pubs can benefit from having food directly out of the sea and on the plate that very evening?

Derek Thomas: Before 10 o’clock.

Scott Mann: Indeed.
I welcome the package of three consultations launched by DEFRA today. The first is on strengthening the economic link for English licensed fishing vessels, to help ensure economic benefits for many of our coastal communities, including plans for an increased landing requirement of up to 70%. That is very welcome news for many people in North Cornwall. The second consultation is on proposals for how the new fishing opportunities that the UK secures in negotiations will be split between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England in a way that is fairer and much more profitable for fishing communities across our four nations. Finally, I congratulate the Department on its proposals for how England’s share of those new opportunities will be distributed across communities. I hope that we will see greater benefits for many of our coastal communities and our hard-working fishermen and fisherwomen.
Concerns have been raised over the past few weeks that the scallop wars we saw a couple of years back in the English channel seem to be resurfacing, with many of our boats being targeted by the French. There is concern in the fishing community in Cornwall that, as we get to the crunch point in negotiations, much of their gear might be towed off and dragged due to the realisation that, if we do not reach a deal, there might be challenges for some continental fishermen.
Finally—it would not be a fisheries debate if I did not mention it—I want to talk about recreational angling. I know that I probably bore the Minister when I talk  about this, and I promise that I will not talk specifically about bluefin tuna, although the conversation we had with the shadow Secretary of State on that recently was very productive; I am hopeful that we might reach a point where we have a catch-and-release bluefin tuna fishery around the coast of the country. I am grateful for the work that DEFRA is doing with the Angling Trust on developing a vision statement for recreational angling in the UK. The Minister will know that I have an ambition to create a world-class fishery and wide recreational opportunity for fishing off the north Cornwall coast. I look forward to working with her on the vision statement. Can she confirm that the statement will include policies that further support the interests of the UK recreational sector?
It is a pleasure to be in the House on this historic night. I have heard on many doorsteps in North Cornwall that we need to repatriate our territorial fishing waters, which were slayed on the altar as we entered the European Union. It is a pleasure to be here this evening to give a green light to the great opportunities that are coming to coastal communities. I ask the Government to continue to be robust in the negotiations, and they will continue to have my full support.

Carla Lockhart: Yesterday, in the debate on the Agriculture Bill,Members heralded a new dawn for UK farmers. Likewise, today, with this Bill, we see a new dawn for our fishing industry, breaking free from the over-regulation of Brussels.
In Northern Ireland, we have a resilient and innovative fleet. They see Brexit as an opportunity. Therefore, as we chart this new course, it is incumbent on our Government to ensure that the approach taken is not simply a mirror image of EU regulation. This Bill indicates that that will not be the case, which is welcome.
Like most MPs here today, I read the briefing from Greener UK, which highlighted the fact that 58% to 68% of fish stocks in UK waters are now at sustainable levels. That signals an improving trend and is good news. The sustainability principle is already at the core of our fisheries policy. There is no need to give it precedence over other pillars of UK fisheries policy.
The top-down command and control approach of the common fisheries policy has failed. The UK must resist the temptation to begin this new era by prescribing draconian solutions across the board, as represented by remote electronic monitoring. On 29 September, the Fisheries Minister in Northern Ireland, Edwin Poots MLA, told the Assembly that
“it is important that we have that devolved flexibility to choose from the range of management tools and measures, and pick those that are best suited to our fleet.”
I agree with our devolved Minister because I do not support the amendment that would see REM prescribed. Rather, REM should be something to be considered with the fishing community, rather than imposed upon them.
Our fishermen in Northern Ireland are custodians of the sea. The principle of sustainability is written into their DNA. I hope the EFRA Minister will acknowledge that, in recent years, the total allowable catch in ICES Area VIIa has been managed according to the principles of maximum sustainable yield. The ICES advice for 2021 indicates more challenges and opportunities in the  area. In the main, these are within natural fluctuations, but there continues to be debate among fisheries scientists and fishermen around some of the stark figures.
Northern Ireland’s fishermen have worked with members of the Greener UK alliance to develop and agree proposals for marine protected areas in the Irish sea. It is no secret that these measures and other similar plans within Northern Ireland’s territorial waters are causing economic harm to local fishermen. Nevertheless, what this shows me is that legislation at a national and a devolved level does work to achieve our marine sustainability goals. I wish to hear from the Minister about what legislative route she intends to use to devolve responsibility to the authorities in Northern Ireland for the designation and management of marine protected areas throughout our maritime zone, as is the case with Scotland and Wales. Amendment 42 offers more power to Northern Ireland, and we welcome that, but we support more devolution of these powers to Northern Ireland, similar to that in Scotland and Wales.
The Public Bill Committee reviewing this Bill did not have any representative from Northern Ireland. The written evidence submitted by the Northern Ireland industry, specifically by Alan McCulla from the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, referred to the marine protected area process, as well as the discrimination faced by all UK fishermen in the Irish sea, especially those from Northern Ireland because of the application of the Hague preference. We presume that, come 1 January 2021, this discrimination will end when the rightful share of annual total allowable catches is repatriated to the UK. That will then be shared among UK fishermen.
I want to make it very clear here that, within the UK, Northern Ireland fishermen expect nothing more than their share of the UK’s old and new fishing opportunities across all waters and quota species, based on the methodology used today. Based on established international law, zonal attachment is the principle that this Government have used to claim an increased share of the available catches. Within the UK, the established principle of fixed quota allocations should be used to apportion any new quota. It should then be left to the devolved Administrations to decide how to allocate that quota.
It is time to seize the opportunities that arise from our escape from the common fisheries policy and Government must ensure that that happens.

Douglas Ross: I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) on an excellent speech. She spoke on behalf of not just her constituency but fishermen across Northern Ireland. She put her case and their case across very well in the House tonight. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be in the Chamber tonight, as we debate such an important piece of legislation for our own constituencies, the communities we represent, the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom. They are looking to this Parliament to finally take back control over our fishing industry. It has for too long been dominated by decisions in Brussels, rather than here in our Parliament in the United Kingdom.
This is very much a framework Bill. It is supported by the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and it allows us to do far more back here in the House of Commons or in  the devolved Administrations. This legislation and the proposals put forward by this UK Conservative Government respect devolution. It looks for and enhances the sustainability in our seas, but also the sustainability in our fishing communities. For so long—decades—fishing communities in Moray such as Cullen, Findochty, Buckie and Burghead have suffered from a reduction in fishing right across the country through the straitjacket of the common fisheries policy. It has done so much harm to our industries, which were crucial to towns and villages right across the country. Many of those areas have been decimated, but now we can start to build back again: build back our fishing industry, our fleet, our crews and our catches, and what they mean to individual communities, what they meant decades ago, and what we can do to revitalise those areas when this industry gets back up and running because of the legislation that this UK Government and this Parliament are looking at, debating and taking through now.
Positive as I am about the Bill, I have to pause for a moment and stop that positivity to discuss the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). [Interruption.] She laughs about her contribution. I wish I could laugh at it. I really wish I could find it funny. I watched part of her speech on the screens outwith the Chamber and, when I was able to come in, I listened to it further. Watching it on television I thought it was bad enough, and then I looked in. Sometimes we say things in the Chamber and we reflect, because we are not reading a pre-prepared, scripted speech, that maybe we could have said something different and put it a better way. I watched the end of the hon. Lady’s speech and she was reading it out. I thought, “What kind of individual sits at a computer and types such a bitter, twisted and misleading statement, reviews it”—I presume she writes it herself, but I cannot guarantee that—“and stands up in the Chamber of the House of Commons and reads out such a poorly crafted argument that does not represent what Scotland is looking for from this Bill and does not represent what fishing communities right around the country are looking for from this Bill?”
I do not believe the hon. Lady’s speech represents the Scottish National party position on this. If you listen to her, there is nothing good in the Bill being brought forward by this Government, but her own party in the Scottish Parliament has given a legislative consent motion for it. So just once I would ask her to look beyond her blinkered vision of separatism, assuming everything done in this UK Parliament is bad, and consider for a moment that the 1 million people in Scotland who backed Brexit and the almost 50% of voters in my Moray constituency who backed Brexit, might actually look at this as an opportunity—an opportunity for this UK Government to take control back from the European Union over fishing and devolve further to our devolved Administrations right across the country. She would do herself, her party and Scottish politics in general a service if she looked at that and that argument from a more positive angle just once—to look at the positivity, rather than always the negativity.

Dave Doogan: I think I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly when he said that there was almost 50% support for Brexit in his constituency, so he lost the Brexit argument in his constituency. Is that right?

Douglas Ross: When 122 votes separate the difference between tens of thousands of votes in the Moray constituency, I think it is fairly legitimate to say that almost 50% of the people in Moray voted for Brexit. I cannot split an individual voter in half, or in quarters or segments, so when 122 votes was the difference out of tens of thousands, I think it is fair to say that almost one in two people in Moray voted for Brexit.

Alistair Carmichael: I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels better for having got some of that off his chest. May I invite him, though, to return to the paths of positivity? He says that he wants to follow the wishes of fishing communities. Look at my new clause 11, which is supported by fishermen, doubtless in his own constituency as well. There is a real need to act on this. Will he join me in urging his own Front Bench to take this seriously, and come forward with serious proposals on it?

Douglas Ross: I was not in the Chamber when the Minister made her opening remarks. I think she may have thought that it was a probing amendment, but I am sure that she listened to the points made. The right hon. Gentleman has now suggested that he will at least press either new clause 11 or 12 to a vote, and I am sure that she will respond to his points. I also listened closely to the heartfelt speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) on not only her own experience of a tragic family bereavement but the representations that she has heard from fishing communities in her long career advocating on their behalf. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but I accept the constructive way in which the right hon. Gentleman has put his case.
Since the right hon. Gentleman has intervened, I can now mention Shetland. An organisation in Shetland has today published the opportunities for the United Kingdom to race up the global rankings in terms of what we can do as a country regarding our share of catch from UK waters. At the moment, about 70% of the fish caught and landed in our waters is caught by foreign vessels. If we compare that with Norway, 84% of the fish and shellfish caught in its waters are caught by Norwegian vessels. I think it is 95% in Iceland.
That is the opportunity that is available to Scotland and the United Kingdom, and that is why many of us in this Chamber are excited about the opportunities for this country, our fishermen and our fishing communities. That is why I had to briefly take a moment to call out the, yet again, negativity and pointless point scoring from the Scottish National party on this issue.

Deidre Brock: rose—

Douglas Ross: I will gladly give way to the hon. Lady, and hope that she has listened to my constructive criticism, will look at this afresh and suddenly decide that the SNP Members are not here just to be bitter and twisted, and for petty point scoring; they are here to work for Scotland’s fishermen.

Deidre Brock: There are always conditions attached to interventions when the hon. Gentleman allows them—very male, Madam Deputy Speaker. He clearly has ambitions to one day lead in the Scottish Parliament  and become the First Minister of Scotland. He always references his constituency and the fact that a large percentage of his constituents voted for Brexit, but when will he accept that Scotland voted 62% to remain, and rejected Brexit? If he has ambitions to be the First Minister, how will he reflect that when he is making his pitch to voters?

Eleanor Laing: Order. We will be rather careful here. This is a narrow Bill, specifically about—

Deidre Brock: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just had to endure a personal attack from the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). I was making the point that if he wants to make those sorts of attacks, he has to be prepared to take it.

Eleanor Laing: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I assume that every Member can take it when they are having an argument. Let me just take a step back to the hon. Lady’s intervention. It was an interesting political point, but I want to ensure that in answering it the hon. Gentleman does so in terms of the Bill that is before us tonight.

Douglas Ross: Of course I will, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will make a couple of points, if I may. The hon. Lady said that my allowing her to intervene, or her taking an intervention from me, always comes with conditions. I hope that she goes back and looks at the previous debate we had in this Chamber about fishing, because I was sat about a couple of metres along from where I am now, and on 12 occasions I tried to intervene on her but she would not let me in once. So I have to say that my generosity is far more generous than hers.
The hon. Lady seeks to criticise me for mentioning Moray. I am from Moray. I am proud of my roots. I was born and bred in my constituency, which I now have the honour to represent in the House of Commons, so I will never shy away from mentioning Moray and what a great place it is—Moray with its great coastal communities and great coastline, a little unlike Edinburgh North and Leith, which has neither.
I will now get back to the point of the debate.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I just want to check, in order to keep within my rules, that Moray does have fishing.

Douglas Ross: The coastal communities on the coastline of Moray provide great opportunities for fishing in my constituency and, indeed, right around Scotland and the United Kingdom. In case I have potentially misled the House, I think there is some coastline in the hon. Lady’s constituency, so before the tweet goes out, I have corrected the record and I apologise for that. We all come to this House to represent our constituents and the areas for which we are elected in order put forward their views. I think it is right that the representative for Moray is able to outline how important this Bill is, and how important it is that the Lords amendments, which could cause some difficulties and troubles for the Bill, are not taken forward, because they would be wrong for the industry both in Moray and right across Scotland.
We have left the European Union. When we leave the transition period at the end of this year, we come out of the straitjacket of the common fisheries policy—the hated CFP that has done so much to damage our industry over the past 40 years. Our fishing communities have decided to leave the European Union and have voted to come out of the common fisheries policy. Why would the Scottish nationalists ever say that, having taken the decision to leave, we should go back into a policy that has done so much damage to our communities and to our industry? I relish the bright future that is ahead of us now with this Bill and look forward to developing it further with communities in Moray, right across Scotland, and across the UK. This is a positive time to be in the fishing industry. This is a positive Bill from the UK Government—one that will deliver right across the country and one that I am pleased to support.

Dave Doogan: I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross).
I am extremely fortunate to represent Angus, the garden of Scotland. Our bounty extends well beyond our exceptional farmland, over our cliffs, and into our abundant seas—the North sea. After all, we have in Arbroath the home of the Arbroath smokie—a taste sensation that I know for a fact the Minister regularly enjoys. Not only that, but in Ferryden and Arbroath harbours we have a thriving inshore fleet fishing creel for crab and lobsters primarily for the EU market. This is where my concern lies. The shellfish trade in Angus is an outstanding success story supporting many jobs and underpinning the thriving buzz in Arbroath and Ferryden harbours. These boats have little to gain from Brexit in their fishing operations, but much to lose if the Government will not or cannot secure a deal for unfettered and tariff- free access to their EU markets.
I remind Ministers that livelihoods and jobs depend on these last-minute negotiations, and fishing businesses, like any other, need clarity over future trading conditions. Even with a deal, fishermen from Angus exporting into the EU will be subject to a regime from 1 January that threatens cost and delay for their businesses. These burdens include the requirements for an export health certificate, a validated catch certificate sent to the importer hours before the lorry arrives, a storage document if the catch was stored, and a processing statement if the product has been treated. They must import their product through an EU border control post and the importer must be notified in advance of the arrival. Notification periods vary so they will need to check with the border control post in question to find out how much notice they can give.
This is a far cry from the seamless process undertaken currently by crews and hauliers supplying markets in the EU today. I seek the Minister’s assurance that due consideration will be given to those lorries loaded up with live catch from multiple vessels in respect of the effect of this new bureaucracy on my constituents in Angus.
There exists a seemingly simpler process for UK vessels landing directly into UK ports. They must land into a North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission-designated portwith a prior notification form, a catch certificate and a pre-landing declaration. That is onerous, but not insurmountable. Direct landings into the EU should be seen as a sub-optimal opportunity. It seems clear that  we need to secure as much value add in the commodification of marine product in Scotland, and the rest of the UK of course, as possible, thereby exporting a higher value product to market rather than exporting the unprocessed product to have the value added abroad. National landingswill deliver that, and to that extent I have some sympathy with amendment 1 tabled by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock). However, as she will be aware, it is England-only so I will be unable to support it. I encourage the Minister, if not in this iteration of the Bill then in future policy, to consider the ambition of a national landing requirement. I know that that is an important element that all devolved Administrations will be taking forward.
We heard the hon. Member for Moray speak at length about the importance of coastal communities and reversing the attrition that was wrought on them in recent decades. This is an element that we may seek to exploit to achieve that. Ridding our fishing fleets of the thoroughly discredited CFP will of course have an upside for crews and skippers, but we need to ensure that we are more ambitious than that. We need to maximise and disaggregate the dividend as far and as wide onshore as possible. To do so will benefit precisely those coastal communities that we have heard discussed earlier this evening, with consequential benefits to local services, driving greater investment through higher populations in rural schools, and increased use of transport and connectivity.
A new future based on zonal attachment holds much promise for our fleets and for the gross value of the industry going forward. This will do much to correct the basic fairness of access to marine harvest. We should feel duty bound to attach any new prosperity widely to coastal communitiesand exploit every opportunity to secure marketing, processing, fuel supplies, services, installation, plant sales and haulage jobs on these shores and in our coastal communitiesrather than elsewhere. This is not protectionism, it is pragmatism.
I understand very well the need to ensure the most profitable and expedient routes to market for crews, but let us be clear that the damage that Brexit will do to our broader economy and economic prosperity outside fishing will be severe and in so far as fishing will benefit from Brexit, the industry should maintain an obligation to support the onshore economy as much as possible in management, processing and the wider supply chain.

Douglas Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He just said that fishing would benefit from Brexit—those are the words that came out of his mouth, and I absolutely agree with that. Can he explain how fishing would benefit from the SNP policy, which is to go straight back into the European Union and the common fisheries policy?

Dave Doogan: I am happy that the hon. Member for Moray is so quick to tell mewhat SNP policy is. Perhaps he will yield to my knowledge of such matters. I think I am probably on fairly solid ground as an SNP politician in saying what our policy is. I will be taking no lectures from a Conservative politician on how to access the EU in the interests of fishing. We have seen how badly it was done by the Conservatives in the early 1970s. We will not be making any similar mistakes with Scotland’s reaccession to the EU after independence, but I do not want to fall foul of Madam Deputy Speaker.
Home landings have their limits, such as with the pelagic catch, which can be so vast and so rapid as to overwhelm the local capacity to process, and there can be no argument with that reality. However, the principle of shared benefit remains intact if domestic capacity is by default exhausted first. I am confident that my colleagues in the Scottish Government are sighted on the national landings priority. The best interests of our Scottish fleet in coastal communities will be served by that devolved Administration, but we should in all four nations work in support of this ambition as maritime neighbours, where we remain subject to the same jurisdiction.
In general, there are substantial opportunities for fishing in the new reality that our fleets face and for our coastal communities, and I look forward to witnessing that renewal, although in closing I remind Ministers of my concerns over inshore fisheries in Angus and across these isles. I will be supporting the SNP’s new clause 3.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I explain something, because there seems to be some confusion, perhaps among new Members who do not know how normal Chamber procedure works? If I impose a time limit, this debate will end at 10 o’clock and there will be several votes at 10 o’clock and Third Reading after that. Anyone can work out how late that will be. If I do not impose a time limit but appeal to Members, for the sake of all their colleagues, to speak for about three to four minutes, and thereby prove that brevity is the soul of wit, the debate will finish earlier, and those who are taking part will have the eternal gratitude of those who are waiting to vote.

Cherilyn Mackrory: I will try to speak clearly with my new self-imposed time limit. It is a pleasure to follow right hon. and hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), and here we are going straight back down the line to Cornwall, which just shows what an important issue this is for the whole United Kingdom.
Despite being the great-great-granddaughter of a Scarborough fisherman, I had no idea as a young girl that I would grow up to become a Cornish fishwife, but here I am. Actually, I am very proud to be so. It is a privilege to be married to a fisherman, because it gives a great understanding of what a scary but wholesome living it is. It is absolutely necessary for the health of our nation. I mentioned in my maiden speech some time ago how precarious a living it is, especially when one is on the end of the phone and the weather turns and they cannot get back, so I will not go into that again.
One thing I have to say is that the fishing industry does not speak with one voice, and that is important to remember. To stand up for the fishing industry means giving our fishermen their voices back, and that is what this Bill absolutely does. It takes a first important step, and that is what we have to remember about this framework Bill.
I will speak briefly to the amendments. I do not think that the Bill is the right place for them, but I understand why they have been tabled. I believe they are well intentioned, and I know that Ministers are listening. In terms of amendment 1, I welcome the Government’s  consultation, and I urge anybody involved to make their representations known before the closing date, which I believe is 10 November.
I would like to see more support from Ministers for direct-from-the-boat sales. When people go to London and eat a nice plate-sized piece of fish in a restaurant, the price can be eye-watering. Let me tell the House that at the other end of the scale, when the fisherman gets his price from market, that can also be eye-watering, but for a different reason. Somewhere along the way, somebody is making a lot of money out of it, but it is not the fishermen, and we need to put that right. I know there are voices in the Treasury who are sympathetic to that, and I make a plea to urge those conversations forward. A business in Falmouth that has just opened has as one of its unique selling points the fact that it wants fish that has never touched land. That sort of business should be encouraged, particularly in Cornwall.
Amendment 2 is about sustainability. One of the main reasons I came to this House was for the sustainability of our oceans and sustainability on land, but when we talk about sustainability in the fishing industry, we cannot talk just about the oceans; we have to talk about the coastal communities as well. Take bass, for example. My hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) and I have spoken at length about bass and recreational angling versus the commercial fishermen, and I want to try to bridge the gap tonight if I can.
I absolutely get the reason why we need to have a sustainable bass fishery. The angling economy in Cornwall is growing and is worth a lot of money, but if that bass fishery is suddenly taken away from an under-10 metre boat, that fisherman cannot feed his family. We cannot just expect these fishermen one day suddenly to have to go out to fish for something else—it does not happen like that. I am not prepared to make people suddenly do that, so we have to have a long consultation with the industry, the fishermen and the conservationists before we come up with a plan. That is why this amendment is misplaced. We have to go with the framework and see where we go from that.
Amendment 3 deals with supertrawlers. Again, I understand why it has been proposed, but I am reassured by Ministers who say that we now are in control of those licences, and pressure will be on our Front Benchers to make the right decisions there. I will not go on for too long, I promise, but let me deal with a couple more things that I want to see, if we can do them.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is no longer in his place, but I have sympathy with him on the enforcement argument, and not just on the outrageous incidents to which he refers. We see daily off the Lizard Point that French fishermen are within our waters and they should not be there. Even in the spawning grounds in the estuaries we need to make sure that anglers are not going up and taking undersized fish. There should be enforcement from one scale down to the last, and we need to make sure we are properly prepared to have enforcement here.
I am a big advocate of labelling—everyone in Devon knows how I feel about that—and it is vital that we get some clear labelling on our fish. The technology is there now to put the boat name on anywhere that that fish ends up, be it in an expensive fancy restaurant or in one of our supermarkets; we can see what boat that fish has  come off and how it was caught. The fisherman who is fishing hook and line should get a better price than the one who is using the nets. The fisherman will then suddenly become responsible for his catch, in the same way as farmers are responsible for the high standards of their animals. That is important and it means that the consumer starts to become king—I hope that Ministers are listening.
We have a great opportunity for a culture change in this country about what we eat and why we eat it—that was mentioned earlier. The new Cornish residents, our TV chefs, who have moved down to the south-west have an important role to play in this. If we suddenly start eating wrasse, which they do in Japan, in sushi, or whatever else it might be, we can start making this a good thing to eat and consumers will follow.
I will conclude because I do not want to take up too much time. This Bill is a great first step, from which we have learned lessons from the CFP. We are finally starting to release our fishermen from the shackles of the CFP, which is vital. What we can achieve for the industry is endless because we are now an independent coastal state. I am reassured that future consultations will benefit our industry and I look forward to plans that come forward next year.

Alyn Smith: I will speak to new clauses 1 to 7, which we tabled to try to improve this legislation. I spent 15 years in the European Parliament, alongside the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), working largely on fisheries reform, among lots of other issues. It is safe to say that the CFP is not the Scottish National party’s favourite policy and a number of things need to be done to improve it. It is the primary reason why Norway and Iceland are not EU members, although they are proudly part of the EU single market, for reasons also largely to do with fisheries and fisheries products.
If I learned anything in my time in Brussels, it was particularly about the marine ecosystem: everything is connected to everything else, and if one does not look at the whole picture, one makes poor conclusions. This Bill really is only part of the picture and it leaves the big questions—the existential questions for all our fishing communities and the people employed in fisheries—unanswered. Passing this Bill tonight, as I suspect Conservative Members will, is the easy bit; making good on the fine promises we have heard this evening will be an awful lot harder. Four years after the vote to leave the European Union and a year after we left the European Union—a fact that I regret deeply—we have yet to see the much vaunted advantages of that Brexit. It is a poor state of affairs that we are this stage in this stage of the proceedings.
The fishing industry is complex. It is not just about boats going to sea and catching fish. In Scotland, it is even more complex. We have a structurally different set-up to our industry in Scotland from that UK-wide. As we have heard throughout the debate, for every one job at sea, there are—depending on how one counts them—seven to 10 jobs on shore.
Stirling—by way of a counterintuitive point, as it is a generally landlocked constituency but for the tidal Forth—is one of the biggest UK producers of farmed prawns. The aquaculture department at Stirling University is engaged in world-leading, planet-saving research that is  crucial to our economy. Tens of thousands of people are employed in aquaculture: in the prawn sector, the salmon sector and the inshore fishery, catching scallops and langoustines, and in the wider processing sector. All those thousands of jobs and all that GDP are utterly dependent on access, by which I mean tariff-free and frictionless access to the EU single market. That really does bring us to the nub of our scepticism about this Bill, which, as we have heard, the Scottish Government and Parliament have consented to because it is necessary, given that we have left the European Union. There is a need for a new legislative framework; we just do not think that this Bill answers the big questions.
The Norwegians joke that there is nothing in such a hurry as a dead fish on the back of a lorry. There are going to be lots of dead fish on the back of lorries wondering where they are going if we do not get a deal that ensures tariff-free and frictionless access. The vast chunk of fisheries’ economic activity is in grave danger in these ongoing talks, and this Bill answers none of their concerns and takes account of none of their interests.
This Bill is a framework for catching fish, and it is meaningless unless there is a deal for market access for all the other fish and fisheries products. The big questions are unanswered, so we have tried to make the legislation better with new clause 3 on the sea fish authority. We believe that more transparency in that structure would very much help the evolution of the organisation in the new challenges ahead. I urge Members to support the new clause, much though we have heard of the Minister’s scepticism this evening.
I am struck by the tone of this debate, as I was struck by the tone of the debate back in December, when I made my maiden speech, on the withdrawal agreement—the withdrawal agreement that so many Members on the Government Benches are now lining up to trash and the Government are looking to resile from in a “limited and specific way”, barely nine months later. The promises that have been made this evening are cheques that will not be cashed in the real world. When Government Members fail to deliver on their grand rhetoric—or, indeed, sincere hopes, genuinely held—they will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Anthony Mangnall: It is always a pleasure to be asked to speak briefly; brevity is one of my strengths, I am sure.
I have four points to make, and I feel that this may be—for those who were here on Second Reading—something of a rehash of my previous speech, not least because I want to speak against two amendments tabled by the Labour party, notably amendment 1 on UK landings. The Opposition talk about the need for specifying percentages for what our fishermen should be required to land. Rather than restricting where our fishermen can go and where they can land their catch, is not the answer to develop our ports to make them competitive with European ports, so that we can attract not only our own fishermen, but fishermen from Europe to land their catch here? That is a more efficient way of building and sustaining the processing plants across the United Kingdom, and building the ports such Brixham in my constituency. That is what we need to be doing—not restricting where our fishermen go.
My second point is on the sustainability principles and amendment 2. The first page of the Bill talks about the principles of sustainability; it is sustainable at its core.  This is a finely tuned balance between the economic values and the sustainable values. The Opposition need to have a little bit of faith in the fishermen who fish our waters, who are determined to look after that stock, and to see their children and grandchildren go into the sector. That really matters.
A point that has been touched on by a number of people is how we develop and encourage our own “buy local” campaign.
I spoke during my maiden speech about the idea that the best of British—that British local seafood—should be on every menu across the country. That remains the case and we have a great opportunity to be able to create that campaign. I hope the Government will look carefully at how we can do that with cross-party support.
Lastly, I am going to sea next year for three days to see what goes on on a trawler vessel. I know that when they look at the Bill and hear us talking about it, they are proud of what the Government are trying to achieve. They are proud of the fact that it takes back control of our coastal waters, and they are proud of the fact that we will no longer be part of the common fisheries policy. I look forward to being able to report what it is like at sea and how the Brixham trawler fishermen operate —and I end my speech there.

Jim Shannon: I am no stranger to this issue—I live some 10 miles from the last working fishing village in the Province, Portavogie. I have watched this village go from hundreds of boats—and the livelihoods provided on the boats—and two fish processing factories to the loss of both factories and to having some 60 boats in the harbour. Women who could shell prawns quicker than we could pick up a hand to lift one were out of work and unable to use their skills in a different way. I have to say, the best prawns in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are from Portavogie—I do not care what anybody says. They are sold the world over, including across Europe, and everybody says that Portavogie prawns have a special taste. I can only agree and I am very pleased to put that on record.
We are pleased that at long last we are leaving the EU and the shackles that tied down the fishing boats in my harbour in Portavogie and across Northern Ireland and the whole of the United Kingdom. They will be away and we will have the freedom of the seas, as we used to, and our fleet will hopefully grow from 60 to the 120 that it once was. The red tape and the bureaucracy will be away as well, so is it not great news that the promise of 1 January next year will see the fulfilment of the liberty and freedom of our fishing fleets across Northern Ireland?
None of what has happened is because there is no desire for fish, or a lack of fish to land—this is all down to the EU’s deliberate policy of giving the EU a living while excluding our own. These policies made sons decide it that was not worth the danger of the sea and the stress of the paperwork to continue generations of fishing, and it was heartbreaking to see. I am ever so thankful that this has to come to an end, and more than that, we have an opportunity to feed into the laws that will govern us. I am proud to stand here on behalf of my fishermen in Portavogie, as well as the fishermen of Ardglass and Kilkeel, whose MP is yet to come to this House to represent them—that is a fact as well.
I thank the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and Alan McCulla for all their work, as well as Harry Wick from the Northern Ireland Fish Producers’ Organisation for all he has done. I also commend the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray); we have had a friendship and relationship with her for a long time.
I am broadly supportive of the Bill and the Lords amendments. In particular, amendment 42 is of great interest to me, as I said to the Minister. We have been pushing regarding the designation and management of marine-protected areas in the Northern Ireland zone being devolved to Northern Ireland for many years. The interpretation that we have been given on amendment 42 is that it provides the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs with powers to make orders relating to the management of fishing activities in the Northern Ireland offshore region for conservation purposes. I believe that we are disadvantaged compared with Scotland and Wales. The Secretary of State retains the power to make designations in the Northern Ireland offshore region. Consideration was given to transferring designation powers to DAERA, but it was not within the scope of the Bill. That is what I tried to raise in my earlier intervention and I seek reassurance from the Minister in relation to that.
As one of my fish producers organisations said to me regarding amendment 42, we need to seek assurances or a commitment on the mechanism and the timeline for transfer of designation powers so that we might get Government agreeable to that and ensure that the ball keeps moving. This is too important, Minister, to be lost after the Bill passes. The Secretary of State and I have worked well over the years. I have the utmost respect for him and all he does. He is not here tonight, and we know why, but the Minister is here and I am very pleased to see her in her place. I ask for a timeline by which I can see the completion of not simply this Bill but the important intention behind it: to bring fishing home for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I am pleased that the environmental factor ranks highly; I thank the Minister for that. That is the very thing that the fishing sector wants to see, and it is the way forward. Fishermen want to see a pledge for the future, because their ability to feed their family and pay their bills goes hand in hand with the need to ensure that fish are thriving. Rather than the red tape that sought to tie our fishermen while releasing other fishermen, we can and must work hand in hand to allow this industry to thrive, as it has the potential to do.
I gave you my word, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will conclude. As I have said, this Bill is not the fisherman’s dream. The fisherman’s dream is one with no more Europe. The fisherman’s dream is one where we can fish the seas around the United Kingdom of Great Britain free. The Portuguese, the Spanish, the Dutch and all those other EU countries think that they can come in and do whatever they want—not anymore, because we are in charge, and we are going to do it our way. We will be ever the compassionate brother and sister that we should be, and we will consider a system whereby they can also fish the seas, but it will be under our rules and our waters, and we will control that. We can look  forward to finally shaking off the shackles of Europe and embracing the best of British fishing across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together, and that includes my comrades on these Benches.

Jacob Young: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon); I agree with him entirely that we are better together. I welcome this historic Bill, which will enable us to keep our promise to the British people and become an independent coastal state after nearly 40 years of being part of the EU’s common fisheries policy. The benefits of the Bill are multiple, as it will both support our fishermen in regaining access to their waters and ensure that that is done sustainably, by protecting our marine environment for generations to come. It will re-establish a balanced approach to fishing, as EU vessels caught nearly eight times as much fish per year in UK waters between 2012 and 2016 as UK vessels caught in other member states’ waters during that time.
What is more, with renewed powers to set catch limits, we can finally live up to our objective of setting higher environmental standards than the European Union. Among those is our commitment to safeguarding marine protected areas from overfishing. To that effect, I wholeheartedly sympathise with the sentiment behind amendment 3, which aims to ban trawlers of more than 100 metres in length from fishing in protected areas. Coastal communities such as mine in Redcar and Marske are increasingly concerned at the sight of those gigantic fishing vessels on the horizon, hoovering up hundreds of tonnes of fish a day. According to Greenpeace, these industrial fishing vessels spent nearly 3,000 hours last year fishing in parts of UK waters that are supposed to be protected.
The Bill provides the Secretary of State with the power to ensure that fishing quotas are not exceeded. It goes further, saying that the UK and devolved Governments not only control who is licensed to fish in our waters but that licence holders will face penalties for fishing in excess. For that reason, I believe amendment 3 to be unnecessary, and I will support the Government tonight. However, I encourage Ministers to recognise the strength of feeling in the House regarding super-trawlers and to use the new powers afforded to them to prevent these vessels from operating in UK waters.
Sustainability is this Government’s priority, and we can only achieve our objectives by working with every Government across our four nations, so I welcome the flexibility introduced for devolved Administrations to have their own say on fishing. I stood on Redcar High Street in 2015 campaigning to leave the EU so that we could take back control of our laws, our borders and our waters. This Bill is a milestone on our way to becoming an independent and sustainable coastal state, and I am proud to support it today.

John Redwood: I am almost seduced by Opposition amendment 1. It is an admirable idea that we should land more of our own fish in our own ports, but I am probably not going to make it to their Lobby, because they lack ambition—why only 65%? We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that the Norwegians and the Icelandics, who have had control of their own fisheries  for much longer or never surrendered them, have much higher percentages than that. These are small, prosperous countries that took their destiny in their own hands, and they have a much finer fishing industry than ours—crippled as it has been for too many years by the common fisheries policy.
So full marks to the Opposition for wanting, for once, to go in the right direction, but let us have a bit more passion and ambition, because it is a disgrace that, after all these years in the common fisheries policy, the overwhelming majority of our fish is taken by others, and it is a disgrace that this great fishing nation imports fish to feed ourselves. I want to see a much higher percentage than amendment 1 suggests, because I think we need the food for ourselves or we would be very good at processing it and adding value to it. I do not just want fresh fish for our tables; I also want to see us putting in those extra factories and processing plants in our coastal communities so that they can produce excellent fish preparations or derivatives of fish for our own purposes and for wider export around the rest of the world. This is crucial.
I am afraid that I am not seduced by amendment 2 either. While I and the Government, and I think everyone in this House, think that sustainability of our fishery will be most important, I do not think it is the only aim, or even the prime aim. It is a very important aim that we want to use our fishery to feed ourselves and others, and to produce much better jobs, more paid employment and factory processing. It is very important, as others have said, that we look after the wider marine environment —not just the fish stocks, but the environment in which the fish and others are swimming.
I think we need to have multiple aims, and I think that is what the Government are setting out. The Government are very much in favour of sustainability, so when we wait—desperately worried—on these negotiations, I say, “Please, Government, do not give our fish away again!” That mistake has been made too often—in the original negotiations to go into the European Economic Community and in annual negotiations thereafter. Let us hope that our fish is not given away in those negotiations. If we cannot fish enough of it in the short term, because we still do not have the boats and the capacity, let us leave it in the sea and rebuild our stocks more quickly, while we get that extra capacity. I would like to hear and see more from the Minister and the wider Government on how we are going to support the acquisition of much more capacity.
Should we not be helping fishermen and fisherwomen commission new boats from British yards, and have that combined shipbuilding capability and the fishing capability, leading on to the production capability? Many of our industries were badly damaged or demolished by our presence in the European Union. This is a prime example of an industry that was crippled. The scope for much greater prosperity for our coastal communities could be added to by the right schemes to get more boats, and by the right schemes such as enterprise zones that allow us to go right up the value chain and produce the best fish dishes in the world.

Derek Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). It is fantastic to be the fourth Cornish MP that has the opportunity to speak in a fishing debate. When I first got elected, we would have to wait until December, just  as negotiations were taking place in Brussels, to get an hour and a half to speak about fishing, so it is fantastic, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) said, to be able to talk about fishing a bit more often, and we absolutely should.
It is a tremendous achievement by the Minister and the Secretary of State to get this far, with all those who have been involved, in delivering the UK’s first fishing policy for decades. This Bill enables Government, regions and the UK fishing fleet to work together for progressively managed, vibrant fisheries in a post-common fisheries policy landscape. I cannot believe I am an MP standing up and being able to say that—fantastic! I know, as an MP who represents one of the UK’s key fishing ports, that south-west fisheries are up for the challenge and keen to get on with it.
I want to speak briefly to the amendments of the official Opposition. I recognise that they have been hoodwinked by the environmental campaign groups, believing the Bill has been stripped of its ability to deliver real sustainability for UK fishing, but this is not the case. Frankly, I am tired of hearing the good efforts of our fishermen and women constantly undermined by the SNP and Labour Front Benchers. Their desire to install a heavy burden of regulation and bureaucracy on fishermen, because of an unfounded belief that the industry is preoccupied with greater access to fish, would be a mistake, and the Government are right to reject the pressure.
Newlyn fishermen have led the way in developing improvements in sustainability and environmental practices, including the cod-end, which has reduced fish bycatch by huge amounts and reduced massively the loss of fish that they were not able to land. Fishermen are not in the business of taking whatever they can, sparing no thought for the resources that future fishermen and women will depend on or for the natural environment. The fishermen I know support conservation priorities such as bycatch reduction and managing stocks under climate change, as well as advocating for a system that will allow for the flexibility and adaptation required to deliver on these goals.
The strong and diverse set of sustainability-focused objectives in the Bill makes this a progressive framework for our country’s rich mixed fisheries and for the communities that depend on them. That framework takes me to my next point: the UK fishing fleet is part of the solution to achieving the full aspiration of the Bill. Co-management is a route to this. I look forward to hearing greater detail from the Government regarding their plan for co-management, but as I said on Second Reading, I cannot overstate the need to maintain a close relationship with our fishing industry. The prize here is enthusiastically to include the industry in the management, design and decision-making process, and trust in the knowledge it holds.
Cornwall’s fishermen want a Bill that leaves scope for engaged and meaningful co-management of fisheries, with genuine fishing voices at the heart of collaborative decision making. As the Bill stands, it is poised to deliver on this ambition.
I hope to get some clarity on the Government’s intention in relation to what is known as the economic link. It seems entirely sensible to say that what is caught  in UK waters is landed in UK ports. Most would see the attraction in that until they started to look at what unintended consequence might arise. There are Cornish boats sailing out of Newlyn that land their fish in France. Why? Because it is fuel efficient to do so, and sometimes and often, their market is favourable. UK fishing is a complex industry and my advice to the shadow Minister and the shadow Secretary of State is that what sounds popular on Parliamentlive.tv and on social media outlets might prove completely unsustainable and counterproductive for the very people and values they seek to represent.
In conclusion, and not entirely unrelated to the economic link issue, when fish are caught and landed in UK ports, Newlyn must not miss out. While I do not believe vessels will ever be prevented from landing in Newlyn, it would reassure local stakeholders if Newlyn could be included on the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission designated ports list. That is something the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can do, and the Minister here can do, irrespective of the Bill—perhaps a necessary tidying-up of loose ends.

Virginia Crosbie: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas). The common fisheries policy has been disastrous for the environment, fishing communities and our future generations. Those responsible in the EU have stood by and allowed chronic overfishing in British waters. That harms the biodiversity of our oceans and the economic viability of our coastal communities. It is now time to right the wrongs, and the Bill is a crucial first step.
Fishing is increasingly important to my island constituency of Ynys Môn. Sea fishing forms a major part of our tourism industry, with many chartered fishing boats operating around the island, as well as bait shops supplying those fishing off the rocks in places such as Aberffraw and Holyhead breakwater.
During the lockdown, we also saw some islanders live out their dreams of a career in Anglesey water. Sion Riley, a Royal Navy veteran, did not let a global pandemic halt his ambition of joining the fishing community. His new company, Holyhead Shellfish, is a favourite with local restaurants and wholesalers. I visited him last week, and he said to me, “Fishing is an important industry in our small but mighty island, but in order to protect the waters for future generations, we need effective management of fish stocks and investment in small businesses like my own. That is why I support the action being taken to ensure future generations can make their livelihoods off the beautiful Anglesey coast.”
The charity Môn CF in Holyhead helped Sion access funds for his boat, the Pan Arctic. Alun Roberts from Môn CF said, “Small business owners go out in all weathers to bring fresh catches to local markets, and a large proportion of produce is exported to countries all over the world.”
This historic Fisheries Bill carries many benefits for Wales. Equal access will be granted for all UK vessels to fish throughout UK waters and new powers will be granted to the devolved Administrations. The fisheries administrations will publish a joint fisheries statement setting out how common objectives will be met.
Importantly, this Government have learned from the mistakes of the common fisheries policy. Effective management is so important if we want fishing to be a  viable career choice for our future generations. I had the pleasure of visiting Gary Thomas and Chris Pritchard, two Amlwch constituents who fish lobster, crab and whelks from their boat, the Boy James. They work tirelessly to provide fresh produce while also encouraging and inspiring the next generation of fishers. However, we must ensure that there are sufficient fish stocks to provide income if we want to keep those communities alive; that is why I am grateful to see the end of the common fisheries policy.
In conclusion, when I look back on my time as Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn, I want to know that I helped Sion to grow and strengthen Holyhead Shellfish, I want to know that Menai mussels have reliable stock for decades to come, and I want to ensure that those who come to our island will experience the joy of their first mackerel catch in the beautiful waters of Trearddur Bay.

Peter Aldous: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie).
In 2018, a community-led group came together to produce a long-term strategy for the fishing industry in East Anglia. The REAF—that is, the Renaissance of East Anglian Fisheries—report was launched in Parliament on 17 October last year. The report concludes that there is an exciting future for the local industry, which has declined dramatically in the past 40 years, but that there is a great deal of work to do.
My interest is to ensure that this Bill provides the framework within which to deliver REAF. On the whole, it does. The Bill is by no means perfect, though it is an improvement on its predecessor from the last Parliament. It has been said by some that, at present, the Bill is a picture frame without a painting, and that there is a need for Government to articulate a compelling vision for a revitalised fishing industry, both leading the world in marine conservation and promoting the revitalisation of our coastal communities.
It may well be that that is what lies behind the amendments put forward by the Opposition. I can understand why the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and his colleagues have tabled them; I have some concerns of my own, which hopefully the Minister will address. However, on the whole, I do not think these amendments are necessary, and we need to get on with delivering this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to revitalise our fishing industry, which can bring so many benefits to coastal communities all around the UK.
Amendment 2 seeks to make the sustainability objective a prime fisheries objective. I can understand the rationale for this amendment, but of the eight objectives, six already relate to the environment, one provides for equal access for UK boats to any area within British fisheries limits, and the other seeks to ensure that fishing brings social and economic benefits to UK communities. There is thus already a clear emphasis in the Bill on the vital importance of sustainability.
There is an alternative view that we are in danger of having too many objectives and that there should be just one straightforward duty to prudently manage a public asset using sound science. However, as it stands, the Bill provides a very clear direction of travel, and it  should be noted that the REAF report’s recommendations, based on the feedback from those working in the industry, have sustainability at their core.
I have much sympathy with the intention behind amendment 1, as one of the main purposes of having a fishing industry is to provide jobs and to bring benefits to local communities—to support the whole supply chain, from the net to the plate, and not just to support those fishermen who sell their fish directly abroad. To address that concern, the Government should put in place policies and funding streams that will enable us to deliver meaningful social and economic benefits for coastal communities. That requires a review of the economic link, and I therefore welcome the consultation on proposals to strengthen the condition and to increase the economic benefit.
There is also the need to invest in infrastructure, in ports and in processing plants, and it is good news that the Bill contains provisions that allow Ministers to set up new grants and funding streams. But time is marching on; the transition period ends in two and a half months, on 31 December, and the industry needs to start planning for what can be a new and exciting future. We need the detail of what will replace the European maritime and fisheries fund. What will be the role of local enterprise partnerships? In Suffolk and Norfolk, the New Anglia LEP is fully engaged in REAF, but its remit needs to be clarified.
Reference has been made to the coastal communities fund and the role that it can play, but its terms of reference need to be changed. The commitment to invest in port infrastructure is welcome, but that crosses the boundaries of other Departments, including the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. The latter is currently focusing on this issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could advise us of what discussions her Department has had with those Departments.
Amendment 3 aims to prohibit fishing in English waters by boats longer than 100 metres—so-called supertrawlers. That is in line with the REAF recommendation, which actually went further: to ban beam trawling, including electric pulse fishing, which has caused so much devastation off the East Anglian coast. Again, I understand why the Opposition have tabled that amendment, but it should not be necessary, as with control of our own waters back in our own hands the Government are able to put a stop to that immediately.
It is good news that the Government have legislated that foreign pulse beam trawlers will not be permitted to operate in UK waters after 31 December, and that they have given notice to the four English-registered vessels that their authorisations will be withdrawn at the same time. I urge the Scottish Government to do likewise for their single pulse trawler. Studies have shown that pulse fishing has had a devastating impact on cod in the southern North sea, and thus I welcome Government amendment 55, which allows the UK to adopt its own measures with regard to the catching of cod in the North sea. That should help to restore stocks insofar as it is possible to do so, taking into account the impact of climate change.
The Bill is not perfect, in that it draws attention to loopholes that need to be plugged and provokes questions that need to be answered, but as a framework Bill it is more or less fit for purpose, and we now need to get on  with putting in place the policies and initiatives that will arise out of it, which will revitalise the UK fishing industry, not just in Lowestoft or in East Anglia but all around the UK.

Sir David Amess: The Report stage of this Bill is an historic moment for our country—one that I have long sought to see. As someone who voted no in the first referendum and leave in the second referendum, I am absolutely delighted to be here and see this happen. I will support the Government amendments and I was convinced by the Minister’s arguments that other amendments are not necessary.
Earlier in the debate, a couple of Members said that they were not around in 1988. Well, I was—I was here. My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) was right to mention that piece of legislation, which was a building block. What I thought was dreadful was when, later in her speech, she described herself as an old woman. As far as I am concerned, she is in the first flush of youth, frankly. Her expertise in these matters was clear when she dealt with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on safety, which is obviously a very personal issue to her. She made her points extremely well.
The Bill leaves us with a unique opportunity to prosper as a global giant in the fishing industry and to regulate the sector how we see fit, instead of just following the European Union’s directives. Support for our fishing industry must not be overlooked, as our fishing and fish processing industries employ 24,000 people and contribute £1.4 billion to our economy. More data and scientific knowledge will help us to manage the fish in our own waters more accurately. With that knowledge and new management plans, we can allow the rapid growth of our own fleet and, in time, limit access for European Union vessels. More importantly, the Thames estuary and the east coast do not have good stock levels of Dover sole, one of the main species. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we need to improve the economic output of the industry, but we also need to be environmentally sustainable to ensure that there are plentiful stocks.
I very much agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friends the Members for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) about the huge vessels that we see in our marine conservation zones and marine protected areas, which are crucial to the biodiversity of our fish. Without removing the laws allowing such big boats into these particularly fragile areas, we will undoubtedly continue to see a decline in our fish stocks and long-term pollution of our environment. A recent Greenpeace investigation reports that in 2019, 25 super-trawlers, none of which were UK-owned—[Interruption.] I think the Minister said that we owned one of them. Those super-trawlers spent nearly 3,000 hours fishing in marine protected areas of the UK coast. That is absolutely unacceptable. One of them included a Dutch-owned 142-metre vessel that was banned from Australian waters. I want the Government to watch this situation very closely and do all they can to protect our own fish stocks.
Domestic waste such as detergents and plastics that pollute our water systems decreases the water quality around the coast and poisons our future. I hope that,  when the Government get some legislative slots, they will do everything they possibly can to protect our coastline.
This is a historic moment for our country because, as an island nation, getting back control of our waters is so crucial. I enjoyed the spat between Scottish Members, because that brings the Chamber alive, and I felt the arguments for and against what is happening on this particular matter. As far as I am concerned, however, this Bill and its Report stage are to be welcomed absolutely.

Bob Neill: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. and old Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I think we can say that literally, being much of an age. He and I have consistently disagreed about Brexit, but we still remain friends for all that. For those of us who were staunch remainers, the common fisheries policy was about the most difficult aspect of our EU membership to defend. That is one part of our arrangements in departing that I do not regret, and I do not think that many other people will either. This is a good Bill and a necessary Bill to put matters on a proper footing going forward.
Bromley and Chislehurst is not particularly noted for its fishing industry, although I do use this opportunity to welcome and give every good wish to the establishment by local businesspeople of the excellent Fish Union Chislehurst, which will provide a direct link from the catchers to the streets of Royal Parade in Chislehurst. It is a great initiative and I am delighted that they are doing it.
In fact, as might not surprise you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am going to talk about a legal point instead, and that brings me to Government amendment 36. I listened with care to my hon. Friend the Minister in her exchanges with me and with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). My hon. Friend is a very good Minister, she is a very good lawyer, and she was in the past a very distinguished member of the Justice Committee, all of which, I hope, will lead her to pause and take stock as to the wisdom of inserting a PEC—a permissive extent clause—at this late stage of the Bill. In effect, it seeks to give the Government the power to legislate, in certain matters, for the Crown dependencies.
There is a long-standing constitutional convention, as my hon. Friend will know from her time on the Select Committee, from our report in March 2017 on the implications of Brexit on the Crown dependencies, and from our visits to the Crown dependencies, that the normal process is that we legislate for the Crown dependencies only with their consent. They are not former colonies or British territories, and they are not part of the United Kingdom in the strict sense.They are possessions of Her Majesty the Queen, by right of her position as successor to the Duchy of Normandy. That is why they do not have representation here. Where necessary, their legislative dealings with the UK Government are dealt with historically through the Privy Council, and are now safeguarded by the Ministry of Justice via the person of the Lord Chancellor. So their constitutional position is different.
The Government have recognised that in the past, for example in tax transparency legislation, where this House accepted that although we have the power to legislate for overseas territories, we do not constitutionally have  the power to legislate for the Crown dependencies in a like manner. I do not understand why the Government are adopting a different stance on this, compared with the one they took on the equally desirable legislation on tax transparency.
The problem is this: of the Crown dependencies, the Isle of Man has consented. Well and good—there is nothing wrong with a permissive extent clause that involves the Isle of Man. However, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, which involves three separate jurisdictions—Guernsey, Alderney and Sark, all of which have their own legislative integrity—and the island of Jersey, have declined to agree to the PEC. Indeed, there were discussions going back to July and they politely said, “No, thank you. We have a good relationship with our neighbours in France”—that is where the vast bulk of their catch lands—“and if we have difficulties we have our own legislative processes, and we will work and legislate for ourselves in an emergency if need be.” So I do not see the constitutional justification for the Government taking these powers.
I had a concern—the Minister will know this—about our taking what many of us thought to be pre-emptive powers in the UK internal markets Bill. In the end that was described as a “break glass in emergency” clause. I do not know whether this is supposed to be a “break glass in emergency” clause, but it seems to suggest the possibility of the UK Government trespassing on the constitutional integrity of the Crown dependencies, in furtherance of a potential dispute between the UK Government and the Crown dependencies.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there is no provision for consultation of any sort in the Bill? This is something that could be done unilaterally. Is that really the way we should be gearing our relationship with the Channel Islands?

Bob Neill: The short answer is that the right hon. Gentleman is right. It is not the right way to do this and we should think again. That is why I ask the Minister to reflect between now and the Bill going back to the other place. In the end we came to a pragmatic compromise on the UK internal markets Bill, and we set in place certain processes, triggers and thresholds for the exercise of that power, should it be needed in emergencies. I urge the Government, between now and the Bill returning to the other place, to think hard about doing something similar, so that we do not get into a situation where our friends in the Crown dependencies find themselves obliged perhaps to seek legal redress against our own Government and, if need be, to invoke their internal arrangements in relation to a legislative referral procedure. As the Minister knows, that can be embarked on and is not the ideal way to deal with this matter.
The concern is simply that the principle of consent is thoroughly enshrined in our relationship with the Crown dependencies. The Government have always sought to adhere to that, and the Minister and I know that we have always advocated that in this House. I do not yet see the grounds for introducing this provision, other than the possibility that it might be needed at some point—again, that sounds familiar in respect of the UK internal markets Bill. Let us find another solution in much the same way, where we consult with the Crown dependencies.
Without any consultation, it seems a needless provocation to attempt to place in the Bill, at a late stage, a provision that I hope will never be needed, but that goes against the express wishes of the legislatures of two parts of the British family. One of those legislatures had a general election only last week, and it now has a new legislature and set of Ministers, with a mandate to maintain their constitutional position. I urge the Minister to use her good influence and wise lawyerly skills to cause her colleagues to draw back a little, put some safeguards in the measure, continue talking to our friends in the Crown dependencies and find a means of accommodating the legitimate concerns of both sides, without taking what might be termed a draconian step.

Victoria Prentis: Well, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), told us to eat more fish. That should not be difficult with Arbroath smokies, Strangford prawns and buying local in Totnes. Even Wokingham is very keen to eat lots and lots more British fish. Chislehurst has a fish union and Holyhead is willing to sell it shellfish—it’ll be great.
The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) said that she was concerned that we would not actually act—that we would just consult. I reassure her that consulting is a precursor to action. We will consult on the economic link for four weeks. We will announce our new policy by the end of the year. We will give the industry a year to adapt and the changes will come in in 2022.
The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who is no longer in his place, was concerned about coastal communities. I can tell him that we have invested £228 million through the coastal communities fund, supporting projects that should create 20,000 new jobs very shortly.
Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock). Many of the amendments to which she takes objection are at the behest of the Scottish Government. I say politely that new clause 3 is really not necessary. Seafish already publishes the information that is sought within it and lays its annual reports and accounts before this Parliament, and that information is widely available.
There were some emotional speeches, and rightly so, including from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray), who has spent 40 years campaigning for this historic moment, but is she stuck in the past? She is not. Yesterday, she launched an electric boat, which shows that there is a future for this exciting industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) again spoke with experience and passion. My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) had a horrible experience during the debate and we send our love to her. Her defence of fishing made her grandfather and Yorkshire proud. My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Derek Thomas) also spoke emotionally. I encourage him to join in with our consultation process thoroughly.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) that clause 6(2)(c) gives him the flexibility that he seeks and I am looking forward to going fishing with him soon—if he ever asks me. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross)  stood up very, very soundly for the Scottish fishing industry and reminded us carefully that the Scottish Parliament has consented to this legislation. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) raised the very serious matter of the case that happened off Shetland. The correspondence to which he referred is part of the MCA correspondence, so I am not able to give him that, but what I would like to offer is to arrange a meeting between him, the MCA and the DFT to discuss this very important matter.
On the speech by hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), DAERA asked for wider powers on conservation beyond the scope of this Bill. We are exploring the options for other appropriate routes if DAERA wants to continue to take that forward in the future—I am happy to take this offline with her. The hon. Members for Angus (Dave Doogan) and for Stirling (Alyn Smith) were concerned about the speed of lorry movements with fish and seafish on them. Seafood and day-old chicks do need priority care and access through the short straits and that is something that the Government recognise.
It was lovely to hear from the Cornish fishwife, my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who gave us some real-life experience and made important points about labelling. I would not mind going on the trawler vessel with my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) if he were to ask me. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young) supported marine protected areas and I was glad that I could answer his concerns on super-trawlers. To my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), I can say that the REAF report contains some interesting ideas that the Government will consider as part of our ongoing work on inshore fisheries.
At the end of this year, foreign vessels will not be able to pulse trawl.
On the PEC, I will continue to consult with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and with the Lord Chancellor, to whom I have also spoken on this issue. I reassure the House that I will speak again to those in the Crown dependencies who are concerned by this step, which is not one I take at all lightly, but I have been persuaded that there is no other option. We are not intending to use the provision, but I think it is correct to have it in the Bill.
I thank all those who have scrutinised the Bill at both ends of this place. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Gardiner. May his lines always be tight. Before today, we had spent 51 hours debating just this second version of the Bill, so I think it is fair to say that it has been well and thoroughly scrutinised. Thanks are also due to Lucy Cheeseman and Giulia Grierson, who are in the Box tonight, to parliamentary counsel, DEFRA officials and, indeed, all those from the devolved Administrations who have worked so hard on this Bill.
The Bill sets in stone our commitment to improving the health of our seas. It gives our fishermen the better future they need, and it is an opportunity to seize a once-in-a-generation chance to take back control of our natural resources and make sure we pass on healthier seas, which are abundant with life. The Fisheries Bill gives us the power we need to protect our fish stocks and help our seafood sector. It sets a gold standard for sustainability, and it allows us to bring fishing home. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 8 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9 - Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated

(1) No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to—
(a) anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat at a time at which the fishing boat is in waters lying within the Special Area and is exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated, or
(b) anything done or not done in relation to sea fish that were caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area at a time at which the fishing boat was exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated.
(2) For the purposes of this section a foreign fishing boat is “exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated” if—
(a) there is in force a licence issued by or on behalf of the Government of the Faroe Islands authorising it to fish in waters lying (to any extent) within the Special Area, and
(b) the fishing boat is not on a list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this subsection.
(3) In this section—
(a) “enactment” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and includes an enactment contained in or made under this Act;
(b) “the Special Area” means the Special Area, as defined in Article 4 of, and Schedule C to, the Faroe Islands Treaty;
(c) “the Faroe Islands Treaty” means the agreement between—
(i) the Government of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands,
relating to the maritime delimitation in the area between the Faroe Islands and the United Kingdom, entered into on 18 May 1999.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This new clause exempts foreign fishing boats from UK regulation where they are fishing in the Special Area and have a Faroe Islands licence. It also gives the Scottish Ministers power to remove this exemption from particular foreign fishing boats by putting them on a published list. These changes are in order to comply with the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation in the area between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10 - Interpretation of Welsh legislation

(1) In the Interpretation Act 1978, section 23B (application of Interpretation Act 1978 to Welsh legislation), as substituted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4), is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (6), for “and “Wales”” substitute “, “Welsh zone” and (subject to subsection (7)) “Wales””.
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In relation to a provision that—
(a) relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, and
(b) is contained in an instrument made after section43 of the Fisheries Act 2020 comes into force,
“Wales” includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea.”
(4) The Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (8).
(5) In section 1(3)(d) (duty to keep accessibility of Welsh law under review)—
(a) in the English language text, omit “applies in relation to Wales and relates to subject matter which”;
(b) in the Welsh language text, omit “y mae’n gymwys o ran Cymru ac y mae’n ymwneud â phwnc”.
(6) In section 3 (legislation to which Part 2 of the Act applies), after subsection (3)—
(a) in the English language text, insert—
“(4) In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health and is made after section 45 of the Fisheries Act 2020 (c. 00) comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b)(iii) to Wales includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;
(b) in the Welsh language text, insert—
“(4) Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod ac a wneir ar ôl i adran 45 o Ddeddf Pysgodfeydd 2020 (p. 00) ddod i rym, mae’r cyfeiriad yn is-adran (2)(b)(iii) at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”
(7) After section 40—
(a) in the English language text insert—
“40A Application of this Part in relation to the Welsh zone
In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, references in this Part to Wales include the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;
(b) in the Welsh language text insert—
“40A Cymhwyso’r Rhan hon mewn perthynas â pharth Cymru
Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod, mae cyfeiriadau yn y Rhan hon at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.””
(8) In Schedule 1, in the Table—
(a) in the English language text, after the entry for “Welsh tribunal (tribiwnlys Cymreig)” insert—

  

  “Welsh zone (parth Cymru)
  “Welsh zone” has the meaning given by section 158 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (and see article 3 of the Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/760), which makes provision about the limits of the zone)”;

  

(b) in the Welsh language text, after the entry for “offeryn UE (EU instrument)” insert—

  

  “parth Cymru (Welsh zone)
  mae i “parth Cymru” yr ystyr a roddir i “Welsh zone” gan adran 158 o Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006 (p. 32) (a gweler erthygl 3 o Orchymyn Parth Cymru (Ffiniau a Throsglwyddo Swyddogaethau) 2010 (O.S. 2010/760), sy’n gwneud darpariaeth ynghylch terfynau’r parth)”.—(Victoria Prentis.)

  

This new clause amends legislation that deals with the interpretation of Welsh legislation, in consequence of the changes made to the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru by clause 45.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3 - Sea Fish Industry Authority: accounts and reports

(1) The Fisheries Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 11 (accounts and reports)—
(a) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The statement of accounts must specify the total amount of income received in the financial year from levies imposed under section 4 in relation to sea fish or sea fish products landed in Scotland or trans-shipped within the Scottish zone.”,
(b) after subsection (7) insert—
“(7A) The report must include details of how income received from levies imposed under section 4 has been applied in the financial year in respect of each part of the United Kingdom by the Authority in exercising its functions including in particular details, in respect of each part of the United Kingdom, of how the income has been applied by the Authority in—
(a) promoting the efficiency of the sea fish industry in that part,
(b) promoting the marketing and consumption of, and the export of, sea fish and sea fish products relating to that part.”.—(Deidre Brock.)
This new clause is intended to ensure that the Authority reports how income received from the levies it imposes has been applied in respect of each part of the United Kingdom.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The House divided: Ayes 65, Noes 335.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 1 - Fisheries Objectives

Amendment proposed: 1,page2,line32, at end insert—
“(b) seafood landings into United Kingdom ports are increased and maximised; and
(c) that an average of not less than 65% of seafood caught in English waters, across all relevant species, should be landed in English ports.”—(Luke Pollard.)
This amendment would amend the “national benefit objective” to include a commitment to increase seafood landings into the United Kingdom and create a specific target for English ports.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 335.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

Clause 16 - Foreign fishing boats required to be licensed if within British fishery limits

Government amendments made: 4,page12, leave out lines 33 to 37.
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 5,page13,line7, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert—
“(9) In this section “licence” means a licence granted under section 17.”—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment is consequential on NC9.

Clause 37 - Section 36: interpretation

Government amendment made: 6,page26, leave out lines 24 to 27.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment removes the definition of “fishery products” from clause 37. The definition is inserted into clause 49 by a separate amendment. The effect is that the definition applies generally in the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.

Clause 39 - Scope of regulations under section 36 or 38

Government amendment made: 7,page28,line16, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 17 and insert
“, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
The purpose of subsection (5) of this clause is to prevent the regulation-making powers in sections 36 and 38 from being used to modify the licensing functions conferred by the Bill. This amendment ensures that subsection (5) protects the functions of all the sea fish licensing authorities.

Clause 47 - Amendments that could have been made under existing powers

Government amendment made: 8,page31, leave out lines 16 and 17.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment removes the definition of “subordinate legislation” from clause 47. A revised version of the definition is inserted into clause 49 by a separate amendment. The effect is that the revised definition applies generally in the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.

Clause 49 - Interpretation

Government amendments made: 9,page33,line40, at end insert—
‘“fishery products” means—
(a) fish or other aquatic organisms resulting from fishing or aquaculture, or
(b) products derived from aquatic organisms within paragraph (a);”’.
This amendment relocates the definition of “fishery products” (currently in clause 37 and Schedule 8) into clause 49 so that it applies generally throughout the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.
Government amendment 10,page35,line11, at end insert—
‘“sea fish licensing authority” means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers,
(c) the Northern Ireland department, or
(d) the Marine Management Organisation;”’.
This amendment relocates the definition of “sea fish licensing authority” (currently in Schedule 3) into clause 49 so that it applies generally throughout the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.
Government amendment 11,page35,line26, at end insert—
‘“subordinate legislation” means an instrument made under primary legislation or under retained direct EU legislation;”’.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment revises and relocates the definition of “subordinate legislation” (currently in clause 47) into clause 49 so that it applies generally throughout the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.

Clause 50 - Extent

Government amendment made: 36,page36,line6, at end insert—
“(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the following provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man—
(a) subsection (1)(a) of section36 (power to make provision for the purpose of implementing international obligations),
(b) subsections (4) to (6) of that section,
(c) section 37 (interpretation of section36),
(d) sections 39 to41 (regulations under section 36: scope and procedure),
(e) section 48 (regulations), and
(f) section 49 (interpretation).”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment would allow the power of the Secretary of State to make provision about fisheries for the purpose of implementing international obligations to be extended to the Crown Dependencies.

Clause 51 - Commencement

Government amendments made: 12,page36,line13, at end insert—
“(da) section (Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities)(agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities);”.
This amendment provides that NC8 comes into force on Royal Assent.
Government amendment 13,page36,line16, leave out
“Section 43 (legislative competence of Senedd Cymru)”
and insert
“Sections 43 and (Interpretation of Welsh legislation) (legislative competence of Senedd Cymru etc)”.
This amendment provides that NC10 comes into force two months after Royal Assent.
Government amendment 14,page36,line21, leave out
“and Schedules 3 and 4”
and insert
“, Schedule 3 and (subject to subsection (5A)) Schedule 4”.
This amendment relates to the commencement of the amendment, inserted by another government amendment into Schedule 4, that clarifies the procedure in the Scottish Parliament applicable to certain Scottish Statutory Instruments made by the Scottish Ministers under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967.
Government amendment 15,page36,line23, at end insert—
“(da) section (Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated) (foreign fishing boats exclusively Faroe-Islands regulated);”.
This amendment provides that NC9 comes into force on Royal Assent.
Government amendment 16,page36,line34, at end insert—
“(5A) In Schedule 4, the amendment made by paragraph 6(13)(d) is treated as always having had effect.”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment relates to the commencement of the amendment, inserted by another government amendment into Schedule 4, that clarifies the procedure in the Scottish Parliament applicable to certain Scottish Statutory Instruments made by the Scottish Ministers under the Sea Fish Conservation Act 1967.

Schedule 2 - Regulation of foreign fishing boats

Government amendments made: 17,page42,line35, leave out sub-paragraph (6).
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 18,page44,line3, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 19,page44,line35, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 20,page45,line23, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 21,page46,line3, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 22,page46,line41, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 47.
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 23,page47,line30, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) and (4).
This amendment is consequential on NC9.
Government amendment 24,page52,line43, at end insert—

‘Scotland

The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 1999
22 (1) The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 1991 (S.S.I. 1999/88) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (fishing prohibition)—
(a) in paragraph (2), for “a relevant British” substitute “any”;
(b) in paragraph (3), for “within the Scottish zone or anywhere outside that zone” substitute “outside the Scottish zone”.
(3) In article 4 (landing prohibition), for paragraph (3) substitute—
(3) The prohibition in paragraph (2) does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(4) In article 5 (powers of British sea-fishery officers in relation to fishing boats), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) (Scotland) Order 2000
23 (1) The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) (Scotland) Order 2000 (S.S.I. 2000/227) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (application), in paragraphs (1)(b) and (1B)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Prohibition of Fishing for Scallops (Scotland) Order 2003
24 (1) The Prohibition of Fishing for Scallops (Scotland) Order 2003 (S.S.I. 2003/371) is amended as follows.
(2) In articles 3 and 4 (prohibitions of fishing for king scallops) for “a Scottish fishing boat or by any relevant British” substitute “any”.
(3) In article 6 (powers of British sea-fishery officers), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Shrimp Fishing Nets (Scotland) Order 2004
25 (1) The Shrimp Fishing Nets (Scotland) Order 2004 (S.S.I. 2004/261) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (prohibition on fishing for shrimps without a separator trawl or sorting grid), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
(3) In article 4 (powers of British sea-fishery officers), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Sharks, Skates and Rays (Prohibition of Fishing, Trans-shipment and Landing) (Scotland) Order 2012
26 (1) The Sharks, Skates and Rays (Prohibition of Fishing, Trans-shipment and Landing) (Scotland) Order 2012 (S.S.I. 2012/63) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (definitions) omit the following definitions—
“fishing boat”;
“relevant British fishing boat”;
“Scottish fishing boat”;
“third country”;
“third country fishing boat”.
(3) Omit article 3 (application).
(4) In article 4 (prohibition of fishing for tope), for “a boat to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”.
(5) In article 5 (prohibition of trans-shipment of tope), for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”.
(6) In article 6 (prohibition of landing tope)—
(a) the existing provision becomes paragraph (1);
(b) in that paragraph, for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to tope caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(7) In article 7 (prohibition of landing specified species of shark, skate and ray)—
(a) in paragraph (1), for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”;
(b) after paragraph (1) insert—
(1A) The prohibition in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to a specified species caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(c) in paragraph (2), for “paragraph (1)” substitute “this article”.
(8) In article 8 (powers of British sea-fishery officers in relation to fishing boats), in paragraph (1)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”;
(b) omit sub-paragraph (c) and the “and” before it.
The Regulation of Scallop Fishing (Scotland) Order 2017
27 (1) The Regulation of Scallop Fishing (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/127) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.
(3) In article 3 (prescribed minimum size for landing king scallops)—
(a) for paragraph (3) substitute—
(3) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”;
(b) in paragraph (5), omit sub-paragraph (a).
(4) In article 4 (restrictions on number of scallop dredges), in the opening words, omit “British”.
(5) In article 5 (exemption from restrictions in article 4), in paragraphs (1), (2), (3)(a) and (4)(a), omit “British”.
(6) In article 6 (requirement to install a functioning remote electronic monitoring system), in paragraphs (1) and (3), omit “British”.
The Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (Scotland) Order 2017
28 (1) The Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/325) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (prohibition of method of fishing), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Specified Crustaceans (Prohibition on Landing, Sale and Carriage) (Scotland) Order 2017
29 (1) The Specified Crustaceans (Prohibition on Landing, Sale and Carriage) (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/455) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “foreign fishing boat”.
(3) In article 3 (prescribed minimum size for landing edible crabs in Scotland), for paragraph (2) substitute—
(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(4) In article 4 (prohibitions on landing, sale, exposure or offer for sale or possession, or carriage of velvet crabs)—
(a) in paragraph (4), after “Scottish zone” insert “, or a foreign fishing boat within the Scottish zone,”;
(b) for paragraphs (6) and (7) substitute—
(6) The prohibitions imposed by—
(a) section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), and
(b) paragraphs (4) and (5),
do not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.
(7) The prohibition imposed by section 1(2) of the Act, as read with paragraph (2), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(5) In article 5 (prescribed minimum size for landing spider crabs in Scotland), for paragraph (2) substitute—
(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(6) In article 6 (prescribed minimum size for landing green crabs in the Orkney Islands), for paragraph (2) substitute—
(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(7) In article 7 (prohibitions on landing, sale, exposure or offer for sale or possession, or carriage of lobsters)—
(a) in paragraph (10), after “Scottish zone” insert “, or a foreign fishing boat within the Scottish zone,”;
(b) for paragraphs (12) and (13) substitute—
(12) The prohibitions imposed by—
(a) section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraphs (1) to (7), and
(b) paragraph (10),
do not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.
(13) The prohibition imposed by section 1(2) of the Act, as read with paragraph (8), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
The Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2019
30 (1) The Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/419) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), in paragraph (1), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.
(3) In article 3 (prohibited methods of fishing), in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), omit “British”.

Northern Ireland

The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993
31 (1) The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.) 1993 No. 155) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (exceptions), omit “to any person who is not a British citizen or”.
The Razor Shells (Prohibition of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998
32 (1) The Razor Shells (Prohibition of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 (Northern Ireland) 1998 (S.R. (N.I.) 1998 No. 414) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (exceptions), omit paragraph (a).
The Crabs and Lobsters (Minimum Size) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000
33 (1) The Crabs and Lobsters (Minimum Size) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000 (S.R. (N.I.) 2000 No. 200) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation)—
(a) omit the definition of “British fishing boat”;
(b) for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—
“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section49 of that Act);”.
(3) For article 4 substitute—
“Exemptions
4 The prohibitions imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, do not apply in relation to sea-fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
The Conservation of Scallops Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008
34 (1) The Conservation of Scallops Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (S.R. (N.I.) 2008 No. 430) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.
(3) In regulation 3 (prohibition of fishing and fishing methods) in paragraphs (3), (4), (7)(b) and (8), omit “British”.
(4) In regulation 4 (exemptions), omit paragraph (a).
The Edible Crabs (Conservation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020
35 (1) The Edible Crabs (Conservation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 (S.R. (N.I.) 2020 No. 152) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation), for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—
“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section49 of that Act);”.
(3) For regulation 5 (exemptions) substitute—
“Exemptions
5 (1) The obligations and prohibitions imposed by regulations 3 and 4 do not apply to any person operating under the authority of, and in accordance with a permit granted under, section 14 of the Act.
(2) The obligations and prohibitions imposed by regulations 3 and 4 do not apply in relation to sea-fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
The Edible Crabs (Undersized) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020
36 (1) The Edible Crabs (Undersized) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 (S.R. (N.I.) 2020 No. 153) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—
“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section49 of that Act);”.
(3) For article 4 (exemptions) substitute—
“Exemptions
4 (1) The prohibition imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, does not apply to any person operating under the  authority of, and in accordance with a permit granted under, section 14 of the Act.
(2) The prohibition imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, does not apply in relation to sea-fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”’.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment inserts into Schedule 2 amendments of Scottish and Northern Ireland instruments so as to bring foreign fishing boats within the regulation of those instruments.

Schedule 3 - Sea fishing licences: further provision

Amendment proposed: 3,page53,line24, at end insert—
“Prohibition on fishing boats greater than 100 metres in length in English waters
1A (1) Any sea fishing licence issued by the sea fish licensing authority for England must include a condition prohibiting the use of a fishing boat greater than 100 metres in length in any of the protected areas specified in subsection (2).
(2) The protected areas to which the prohibition in subsection (1) applies are marine conservation zones and marine protected areas as defined in the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations add to the list of protected areas in subsection (2).”.—(Luke Pollard.)
This amendment would include in the sea fishing licence conditions a prohibition on using a fishing boat longer than 100 metres in protected areas in English waters.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 331.
Question accordingly negatived.
The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.
Proceedings interrupted(Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker putforthwiththe Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Schedule 3 - Sea fishing licences: further provision

Amendments made: Government amendment 25, page 55, line 17, at end insert—
‘(4) This paragraph does not confer power on a sea fish licensing authority to make arrangements for a licensing function to be exercised on its behalf by another sea fish licensing authority (see instead section (Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities)(agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities)).”
This amendment clarifies the relationship between the power in paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to arrange for licensing functions to be exercised by an agent, and the powers in NC8 under which sea fish licensing authorities are able to make agency arrangements with each other.
Government amendment 26,page57,line10, leave out sub-paragraph (1)
This amendment removes the definition of “sea fish licensing authority” from Schedule 3. The definition is inserted into clause 49 by a separate amendment. The effect is that the definition applies generally in the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.
Government amendment 27,page57,line17, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
(a) section 15 or 17,”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment is consequential on NC9 and has the effect that the power of the Scottish Ministers to maintain a list of fishing boats that they regulate even if they are also regulated by the Faroe Islands authorities is not a power that counts as a “licensing function” under Schedule 3.

Schedule 4 - Access and licensing: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: Government amendment 28, page 61, line 41, at end insert—
(d) in subsection (11)(b), after “approval”, in the second place it occurs, insert “or annulment”.”
This amendment clarifies the procedure in the Scottish Parliament applicable to certain Scottish Statutory Instruments made by the Scottish Ministers under the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967.
Government amendment 29,page67,line19, in schedule 4, after “zone” insert “only” —(Victoria Prentis.)
This technical amendment removes an ambiguity as to the words revoked by paragraph 18(2)(a).

Schedule 8 - Powers to make further provision: devolved authorities

Amendments made: Government amendment 30, page 86, leave out lines 38 to 42
This amendment removes the definition of “fishery products” from paragraph 2 of Schedule 8. The definition is inserted into clause 49 by a separate amendment. The effect is that the definition applies generally in the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.
Government amendment 31,page88,line15, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 16 and insert
“, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,”
The purpose of paragraph 4(4) of this Schedule is to prevent the regulation-making powers in paragraphs 1 and 3 from being used to modify the licensing functions conferred by the Bill. This amendment ensures that paragraph 4(4) protects the functions of all the sea fish licensing authorities.
Government amendment 32,page90, leave out lines 24 to 28
This amendment removes the definition of “fishery products” from paragraph 7 of Schedule 8. The definition is inserted into clause 49 by a separate amendment. The effect is that the definition applies generally in the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.
Government amendment 33,page92,line10, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 11 and insert
“, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,”
The purpose of paragraph 9(5) of this Schedule is to prevent the regulation-making powers in paragraphs 6 and 8 from being used to modify the licensing functions conferred by the Bill. This amendment ensures that paragraph 9(5) protects the functions of all the sea fish licensing authorities.
Government amendment 34,page94, leave out lines 17 to 21
This amendment removes the definition of “fishery products” from paragraph 12 of Schedule 8. The definition is inserted into clause 49 by a separate amendment. The effect is that the definition applies generally in the Bill. The definition is used in NC8.
Government amendment 35,page95,line41, leave out from “State” to “under” in line 42 and insert
“, or of any of the sea fish licensing authorities,” .—(Victoria Prentis.)
The purpose of paragraph 14(4) of this Schedule is to prevent the regulation-making powers in paragraphs 11 and 13 from being used to modify the licensing functions conferred by the Bill. This amendment ensures that paragraph 14(4) protects the functions of all the sea fish licensing authorities.

Schedule 10 - Amendments of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009

Amendments made: Government amendment 37, page 109, line20, at end insert—
‘(10A) An order under this section that contains provision for the charging of fees for permits (including provision changing the level of fees) is subject to the affirmative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010) (asp 10)).”
This amendment provides for the affirmative procedure to apply to an order made by the Scottish Ministers under new section 137A of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (orders relating to exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Scottish offshore region) if the order makes provision about the charging of fees for permits.
Government amendment 38,page109,line21, leave out “An” and insert “Any other”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment that provides for the affirmative procedure to apply to an order made by the Scottish Ministers under new section 137A of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (orders relating to exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Scottish offshore region) if the order makes provision about the charging of fees for permits.
Government amendment 39,page109, leave out lines 22 and 23 and insert
“that Part of that Act).”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment that provides for the affirmative procedure to apply to an order made by the Scottish Ministers under new section 137A of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (orders relating to exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Scottish offshore region) if the order makes provision about the charging of fees for permits.
Government amendment 40,page110,line7, at end insert—
‘(5) Where in reliance on subsection (4)(a) the Scottish Ministers do not comply with subsection (1) before making an order under section 137A, that order—
(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and
(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.
(6) The Scottish Ministers may by further order extend the period for which an order to which subsection (5) applies is in force for a period not exceeding 12 months.”
This amendment limits the time for which an order under new section 137A (orders relating to exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Scottish offshore region) can remain in force if made without consultation.
Government amendment 41,page111,line11, at end insert—
‘(4) An order to which this section applies may be amended or revoked by a further order.””
This amendment ensures that the powers of the Scottish Ministers to make orders under new section 137A and 137C of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 can be exercised so as to amend or revoke previous orders.
Government amendment 42,page111,line11, at end insert—
Orders for marine conservation: Northern Ireland offshore region
137E Orders relating to exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Northern Ireland offshore region
(1) The Department may make one or more orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purposes of conserving—
(a) marine flora or fauna,
(b) marine habitats or types of marine habitat, or
(c) features of geological or geomorphological interest.
(2) An order under this section may be made so as to apply to any area in the Northern Ireland offshore region.
(3) An order under this section must specify the flora or fauna, habitat or type of habitat or features for the conservation of which it is made.
(4) The provision that may be made by an order under this section includes, in particular, provision falling within any of the Heads set out in subsections (5) to (7).
(5) Head 1 is provision prohibiting or restricting the exploitation of sea fisheries resources, including—
(a) provision prohibiting or restricting such exploitation in specified areas or during specified periods;
(b) provision limiting the amount of sea fisheries resources a person or vessel may take in a specified period;
(c) provision limiting the amount of time a person or vessel may spend fishing for or taking sea fisheries resources in a specified period.
(6) Head 2 is provision prohibiting or restricting the exploitation of sea fisheries resources without a permit issued by the Department, including—
(a) provision for the charging of fees for permits;
(b) provision enabling conditions to be attached to a permit;
(c) provision enabling the Department to limit the number of permits issued by it.
(7) Head 3 is—
(a) provision prohibiting or restricting the use of vessels of specified descriptions;
(b) provision prohibiting or restricting any method of exploiting sea fisheries resources;
(c) provision prohibiting or restricting the possession, use, retention on board, storage or transportation of specified items, or items of a specified description, that are used in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources;
(d) provision for determining whether such items are items of a specified description.
(8) An order under this section may be made—
(a) subject to specified exceptions or conditions;
(b) so as to cease to have effect after a specified period.
(9) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases, including in particular—
(a) different times of the year,
(b) different means or methods of carrying out an activity, and
(c) different descriptions of sea fisheries resources.
(10) In this section “specified” means specified in the order.
(11) In this section, and in sections 137F to 137H, “the Department” means the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
137F Consultation etc regarding orders under section 137E
(1) Before making an order under section 137E the Department must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State,
(b) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the English offshore region, consult the MMO,
(c) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Scottish offshore region, consult the Scottish Ministers,
(d) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Welsh offshore region, consult the Welsh Ministers, and
(e) consult any other person whom they think fit to consult.
(2) The Department must publish notice of the making of an order under section 137E.
(3) The notice under subsection (2) must—
(a) be published in such manner as the Department think is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it;
(b) give an address at which a copy of the order may be inspected.
(4) Where the Department think that there is an urgent need to make an order under section 137E to protect the Northern Ireland offshore region—
(a) subsection (1) does not apply,
(b) the notice under subsection (2) must also state that any person affected by the making of the order may make representations to the Department.
(5) Where in reliance on subsection (4)(a) the Department does not comply with subsection (1) before making an order under section 137A, that order—
(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and
(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.
(10) The Department may by further order extend the period for which an order to which subsection (5) applies is in force for a period not exceeding 6 months.”
137G Interim orders made by the Department
(1) The Department may make one or more orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purpose of protecting any feature in any area in that region if the Department thinks— An interim order under this section must contain a description of the boundaries of the area to which it applies (which must be no greater than is necessary for the purpose of protecting the feature in question).
(a) that the appropriate authority should consider whether to designate the area as an MCZ, and
(b) that there is an urgent need to protect the feature.
(2) Subsections (4) to (10) of section 137E apply to an interim order under this section.
(3) An interim order under this section—
(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and
(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.
(4) The Department may by further order extend the period for which the interim order is in force for a period not exceeding 6 months.
(5) The Department must publish notice of the making of an interim order under this section.
(6) The notice under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published in such manner as the Department think is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it;
(b) give an address at which a copy of the order may be inspected;
(c) state that any person affected by the making of the order may make representations to the Department.
(7) The Department must keep under review the need for an interim order under this section to remain in force.
(8) In this section “feature” means any flora, fauna, habitat or feature which could be a protected feature if the area in question were designated as an MCZ.
137H Further provision as to orders made under section 137E or 137G
(1) This section applies to any order made under section 137E or 137G.
(2) The Department must send a copy of any order to which this section applies to the Secretary of State and to any person consulted under section 137F(2).
(3) The Department must—
(a) make a copy of any order to which this section applies available for inspection at such place as the Department thinks fit for that purpose at all reasonable hours without payment;
(b) provide a copy of any such order to any person who requests one.””
Government amendment 43,page111,line12, at end insert—
‘(1A) In the heading, omit “by Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers”.”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 44,page111,line21, at end insert—
‘(2B) This section also applies where the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has the function of —
(a) deciding whether to make an order under section 137E;
(b) deciding whether to make an order under section 137G.””
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 45,page111,line22, leave out “or Scottish Ministers” and insert “, the Scottish Ministers or the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 46,page111,line28, after “134A,” insert “134B,”
This amendment makes contravention of an orders under new section 134B of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Welsh offshore region) an offence.
Government amendment 47,page111,line29, leave out “or 137C” and insert “, 137C, 137E or 137G”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 48,page112,line5, leave out “or 137A(6)” and insert “, 137A(6) or 137E(6)”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 49,page112,line21, at end insert—
27A In section 189 (power of Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “Subject to subsection (2), the” substitute “The”;
(b) omit subsection (2).”
This amendment allows the Welsh Ministers to use the power to make provision by order under section 189 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 whether or not they could make that provision under another power.
Government amendment 50,page112,line34, leave out “or 137C” and insert “, 137C, 137E or 137G”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 51,page113,line14, at end insert—
‘(15) Where the fisheries exploitation legislation consists of an order made under section 137E or 137G of this Act (orders relating to Northern Ireland offshore region), this section applies as if—
(a) references to a marine enforcement officer included a person appointed as such by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland,
(b) for the purposes of subsection (3)(a), the relevant enforcement area were Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland inshore region and the Northern Ireland offshore region, and
(c) subsections (3)(c) and (d) and (4) to (6) were omitted.””
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 52,page113,line17, leave out “or 137C” and insert “, 137C, 137E or 137G”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment which will insert new sections 137E and 137G into the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009.
Government amendment 53,page113,line19, leave out paragraph 30 and insert—
30 (1) Section 316 (regulations and orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)(a)—
(a) for “137” substitute “137G”;
(b) after “MCZs” insert “etc”.
(3) In subsection (6), before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) any order under section 137E that contains provision for the charging of fees for permits (including provision changing the levels of fees),”.” —(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment provides that an order made by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland under new sections 137E of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 is subject to the affirmative procedure if it includes provision about the charging of fees.

Schedule 11 - Retained direct EU legislation: minor and consequential amendments

Amendments made: Government amendment 54, page 113, line 39, at end insert “, and
(c) paragraph 15 makes consequential amendments.”
This amendment is consequential on the amendment inserting a new paragraph 15 in Schedule 11 of the Bill.
Government amendment 55,page122,line34, at end insert—
“Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123
13A In Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123 fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, in Article 14 (remedial measures for cod in the North Sea), omit paragraphs 2 to 4.”
This amendment repeals provisions of retained EU law concerned with the catching of cod in the North Sea. This will allow the United Kingdom to adopt its own measures in relation to cod in the North Sea.
Government amendment 56,page123,line19, at end insert—
“Consequential amendments
15 (1) In the Sea Fishing (EU Recording and Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010 (S.S.I. 2010/334) (as amended by the Exit Regulations)—
(a) in article 2, in paragraph (1)—
(i) omit the definition of “Regulation 2017/2403”;
(ii) in the definition of “third country recording and reporting requirement” omit paragraph (ii) (and the “or” before it);
(b) in that article, for paragraph (5) substitute—
“(5) Any expression used, and not defined, in this Order that is used in the Control Regulation or Regulation 404/2011, or that is used in both of those Regulations, has the meaning it has in the Regulation or Regulations in which it is used.”;
(c) in article 6, omit paragraph (2);
(d) in Schedule 2, in the table, omit the entries relating to Regulation 2017/2403.
(2) In the Sea Fishing (EU Control Measures) (Scotland) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/320) (as amended by the Exit Regulations), in article 2(1)—
(a) omit the definition of “Regulation 2017/2403”;
(b) in the definition of “third country control measure”—
(i) omit “Regulation 2017/2403 or”;
(ii) omit paragraph (a).
(3) In this paragraph “the Exit Regulations” means the Fisheries (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/24).” .—(Victoria Prentis.)
This amendment makes amendments of certain Scottish Statutory Instruments which are consequential on the revocation of retained EU law already provided for in Schedule 11 of the Bill.
Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Public Health

That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations (S.I., 2020, No. 1026), dated 23 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 September, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1028), dated 23 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 September, be approved.—( David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations (S.I., 2020, No. 1021), dated 22 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22 September, be approved.—( David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.

GENERAL SYNOD (REMOTE MEETINGS) (TEMPORARY STANDING ORDERS) MEASURE

Ordered,
That the Measure passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, entitled General Synod (Remote Meetings) (Temporary Standing Orders) Measure (HC 879), be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee. —( David T. C. Davies.)

Women’s Rugby: Government Support

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(David T.C. Davies.)

Rosie Winterton: What better way to adjourn than by celebrating the Minister’s 50th birthday by discussing Government support for women’s rugby?

Fay Jones: This is well past my bedtime, but I know that this debate will be well worth the wait. Before I go on, however, I should like to wish the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), a very happy birthday. I am sure he cannot think of a better way to spend his 50th birthday than talking about women’s rugby with us. I wish him many happy returns.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting me this Adjournment debate on a subject very close to my heart. Being from Wales and choosing to talk about rugby in my first Adjournment debate is, I admit, something of a cliché, but across the world, more than 2.7 million women are registered rugby players, making up over a third of all rugby players in members’ unions, and some time ago I was proud to be one of their number. I took up playing women’s rugby when I was at university, and I proudly played tighthead prop for King’s College for four years. In my third year, I was fortunate enough to spend a year teaching English in France and so, to make friends, I joined the Gourdon rugby team, again playing in the women’s first team. I thoroughly enjoyed every moment playing rugby, even the occasional bruise and graze, and especially the social aspect of the team.
I found sport at a relatively young age when my knees did not creak and I could bounce back after 80 minutes of full contact rugby, but taking up sport at any age is a life-changing experience. The transformative lifelong rewards go far beyond health and fitness. I spoke recently to a former Welsh women’s rugby international and current referee, and she was clear that she would not be who she is without rugby. She said that rugby had provided her with the confidence, skills and work ethic to be successful not just in sports but in her work and personal life. Above all, playing rugby provided her with a sense of community, no matter where life took her.

Tonia Antoniazzi: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Fay Jones: To a Welsh international? Absolutely!

Tonia Antoniazzi: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this Adjournment debate on a topic that is also close to my heart, particularly because she is talking about wellbeing in the community of women’s rugby, which extends to France. I also played my rugby for the women’s team at Benetton in Treviso during my year abroad, so obviously there are many links with rugby. Does she agree that we need to ensure that the confidence that all sport gives women continues, particularly during the pandemic, and that women are encouraged to enjoy sport, do more sport and exercise more?

Fay Jones: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I will go on to talk about some of those things later in my speech, but if we can make just one point here this evening, it is that more women need to think of ways to prioritise sport and fitness for themselves, because the untold benefits to their mental and physical health really cannot be overestimated. She and I do not agree on everything, but we certainly agree on that.
Perhaps it is the love of the game of rugby that motivates the members of the Welsh national team to compete unpaid against countries such as England, which has offered 28 full-time 15-a-side contracts to women players since January last year. With that in mind, I welcome the Welsh Rugby Union’s recent announcement of its intention to make the Welsh women’s rugby squad semi or fully professional in the future. That is not only a recognition of the hard work that these sportswomen put in but an investment in the future of the elite women’s game in Wales, and I hope to see it come to fruition very soon.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate; I spoke to her beforehand and sought her permission to make this intervention. Ulster Rugby has, in many ways, led in this area. The Ulster Rugby team wear the same shirts as the Ulster women’s rugby team, so whenever we see that shirt, we see not just a man but a woman. Does she agree that that decision gives equality and recognises the phenomenal job that the ladies do in representing Ulster? Their thrilling matches are every bit as worthy of the shirt as a men’s game, and the enjoyment is equal.

Fay Jones: I feel honoured to have been intervened on by the hon. Gentleman in my first Adjournment debate—I have truly arrived in this House. I could not agree with him more. Anything that raises the visibility of the women’s game and puts it on a par with the men’s game is welcome, and I congratulate Ulster Rugby on that step.
The elite and grassroots of women’s rugby in Wales are closely interlinked, and I pay tribute to the rugby clubs in my constituency who demonstrate that. Rebekah O’Loughlin had her first cap as a Gwernyfed Ladies player, a fierce women’s team in Talgarth near Brecon in my constituency. Wales captain Carys Phillips even takes the time to act as an ambassador for Red Kites, a female rugby hub for ages six to 18, also based in my constituency. So-called hubs such as Red Kites, which provide the opportunity for girls-only rugby, have seen an explosion of interest and participation. I spoke with the Red Kites female hub lead, and they stressed that the game is open to all, and those of all abilities can benefit from the family, team spirit and life skills that come from playing the game. Red Kites is just one of 32 hubs around Wales.

Tonia Antoniazzi: I thank the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way. Because of local lockdowns, Welsh Rugby Union training had stopped. I visited West Swansea Hawks in Gowerton in my constituency and saw its fantastic set-up for covid-regulated training sessions. I pay tribute to all the women’s rugby hubs throughout Wales and the United Kingdom, who are doing a great job in keeping people safe.

Fay Jones: Again, the hon. Lady is absolutely right, and I congratulate all those rugby clubs who have worked incredibly hard to consider social distancing  measures. It is a contact sport, and it is very much to be celebrated that we are getting community rugby back up and running again.
The number of girls playing rugby in the 95 schools and colleges with full-time rugby hub officers has gone from fewer than 200 to almost 10,000 in the space of just a few years. I can only hope that each and every one of those girls enjoys rugby as much as I did. While I am the first to admit that rugby is my sport of choice, I am a firm believer that all sports provide lifelong benefits. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that women and girls are still 20% less likely to participate in team sports than men and boys, with many contributing factors to why that is the case. Sport England research has found that the main reason for this lack of participation is fear—something that I am sure all women in the House can relate to.

Taiwo Owatemi: Does the hon. Member agree that it is high time that women’s rugby teams, such as Coventry Welsh Ladies in my constituency, enjoyed equality of esteem with that afforded to men’s games?

Fay Jones: I do not disagree. I think anybody watching the women’s game derives exactly the same amount of value and entertainment, and it is a sporting spectacle in the same way.
The fear identified in Sport England’s research as the main barrier to participation is a fear of being unable to participate, a fear of the judgment of others and, for many, a fear of choosing to spend time on themselves rather than their families. That fear is in addition to many other factors. For many women rugby players I spoke to, there are practical barriers to participation too, such as not having a club nearby, having to travel long distances to fixtures and, in one club’s case, only having two changing rooms, which meant that they were unable to arrange a fixture at the same time as a men’s match was going on. That said, I am pleased to hear that over the past decade women’s sport in the UK has been on an upward trajectory, and I wish to pay tribute to all those who have brought that about, particularly the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), whom we look forward to welcoming back to her place in this House very soon.
Increased resources from international and national bodies, alongside funding from brands, such as Vitality’s sponsorship of netball and Barclays funding of the women’s super league, have resulted in the growth of a variety of women’s sport. I wholeheartedly endorse campaigns such as This Girl Can, which has seen nearly 3 million women get more active, across all sports. The Welsh Rugby Union’s schemes such as rookie rugby and rugby fit are very much to be celebrated, as they challenge the perception that rugby is not for girls. This has allowed far more women and girls to reap the physical and mental benefits of playing.
However, it would not be 2020 if I did not have to mention the dreaded C word. Coronavirus is threatening the momentum generated over the past decade for women’s sport. During the lockdown earlier this year 42% of women, compared with 35% of men, reported a drop in activity levels. With a move en masse towards working from home, 32% of women said that they  could not prioritise doing exercise during the lockdown as they had too much to do for others. Some 25% of women became worried that getting back into the habit of exercise would be hard, which I can say from personal experience is very true. As organised sport and exercise were put on hold for men and women alike, we saw the loss of events that showcase gender parity in sport, such as the Tokyo Olympics and The Hundred cricket competition. The visibility that these events provide for women’s elite sport is vital to making women’s sport a natural and accepted part of the sporting landscape. It can also have an impact on grassroots participation by highlighting to women and girls the possibilities of what they can do. At the elite level, although some men’s sport has started to return, women’s sport is further behind. The women’s premier 15s rugby was cancelled because of covid and started back only on 10 October, well after the men’s game, which restarted in August. In order for it to start significant changes have been made to the game so as to reduce face-to-face contact time and therefore avoid the expenses required for regular covid testing—these changes were not made to the men’s game.
Unfortunately, as sport returns, fans will not be returning. Admissions to matches provide a key funding source, particularly for rugby. Without that money, the WRU announced yesterday that its revenue was down from the £90 million level in 2019. The Rugby Football Union has predicted potentially losing up to £142 million and the rugby league union is also expecting losses, with the cancellation of the first home ashes series since 2003. As the rugby unions tighten their belts, I am extremely worried that women’s rugby will be the hardest hit. The RFU has already taken the decision to cut financial support to each of the 10 teams in the premier 15s by 25%, which means that each club will be receiving just £56,000, a reduction from the £75,000 this season.
At a grassroots level, clubs I have spoken to also have serious concerns about the finances of the women’s game. Some are worried that because women’s and girls’ rugby does not receive the same financial support as the men’s game, they will struggle to restart training and matches. But it is not all bad news, because in July the WRU committed to providing an additional £600,000 fund to support clubs in Wales. Enabled by the UK Government funding of more than £4 billion to cope with coronavirus, the Welsh Government have recently announced a £14 million fund for Wales’s sport and leisure sector. Significant support has also been provided to clubs by the Be Active Wales Fund, which has also seen funding awarded to seven bids from rugby union which positively target women and girls. I was also pleased to see the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport work with Sport England to make up to £195 million of funding available to help the sport and physical activity sector through the ongoing coronavirus crisis. The UK Government are also making more than £11 million of Sport England investment in the Rugby Football League. In May, the Government announced that the RFL would receive a further £16 million cash injection to safeguard the immediate future of the sport for the communities it serves.
I welcome the investment of up to £10 million in rugby league facilities to help drive the legacy from the 2021 rugby league world cup, which will, for the first time, see a combined men’s, women’s and wheelchair  tournament. The visibility provided by the 2021 rugby league world cup and other future events, such as the Birmingham Commonwealth games, could really help to boost participation in women’s rugby. As the organisation Women In Sport has said, “Given the gap in participation between women and men, which has widened during covid, the visibility of women’s sport has never been more important.”
While I welcome the much-needed funds being made available for sport across the UK, we must fund the change we want to see in the sport. As we recover from covid-19, we should be aiming to increase the participation of women and girls in sport, the accessibility of women’s sport and its visibility. At the very least, we should not be prioritising men’s sport over women’s.

Sarah Atherton: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. A year ago, Wrexham rugby club set up the Valkyries rugby cluster, which recruits young women from across north-east Wales. It is vital that we in the House promote the role of women in rugby and get whatever financial support we can. I appreciate her doing this tonight.

Fay Jones: I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour. I would be delighted to learn more about rugby in north Wales. As far as I am aware, it is more of a south and mid-Wales sport, but I would love to see even more participation in north Wales, where people seem to be obsessed with the funny-shaped ball, not the proper-shaped one.
Here is my ask to our Governments: to the UK Government, the Welsh Government, sporting bodies and rugby organisations alike, please ensure that women’s sports receive their fair share of this emergency funding and that we continue to encourage more women to play sport.
When I began playing rugby at university, we were in a tiny minority and were seen as women playing a man’s game. That is far from true now, so let us not let all the progress we have seen in recent years be undone.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) for tabling the debate and those who have already contributed; many of them are very knowledgeable on the subject. It is a genuine pleasure to be talking about women’s sport—one of my top political priorities —on my birthday. I can look my daughter in the eye and tell her that this is what I spend my time doing.
It is vital that we continue to strive for greater equality and opportunity in sport. Women’s rugby is a great example of the benefits that sport and physical activity can bring. It boosts self-esteem, builds resilience, is empowering and is fun to play. We have seen a number of successes in the professional game, with the Red Roses winning the women’s six nations championship on 15 out of 24 occasions, and winning the grand slam 14 times and the triple crown 21, although I appreciate that my hon. Friend, being a Welsh MP, might not be as enthusiastic about that celebration as I am.
My hon. Friend articulated the great progress being made by Welsh women’s rugby, which is no surprise for such a proud rugby nation. Sport is primarily a devolved matter, although much of what I have to say applies across the UK.
It is vital that we maintain our focus on women’s sport and build on the fantastic progress made in recent years. I pay tribute to those national governing bodies and competitions that have showcased women’s sport in their behind-closed-doors programmes over recent months. It was great to see the return of the women’s Premier 15s on Saturday, for example.
Sponsorship and commercial investment are key to growing elite sport, so I welcome the recent announcement that Allianz Insurance has agreed a sponsorship deal with the Rugby Football Union, which will see funds flow to women’s rugby teams. That partnership means the Premier 15s, which is the top-flight women’s domestic rugby competition in England, will receive a landmark investment to grow women’s and girls’ rugby, but I recognise the impact that covid has had on sport and that women’s sport has been hit particularly hard.
That is why I met governing bodies, including the RFU, the Rugby Football League and the chief executive officer of the charity Women In Sport, over the summer to explore the challenges covid has brought and discuss what more can be done. I am happy to say that there was a real shared commitment to protecting investment in women’s sport and promoting its growth.
I know covid has had an impact on rugby and the Rugby Football Union has had to make difficult decisions, with cuts to its workforce and a reduction in its investment in grassroots development. I want to take this opportunity to assure hon. Members that I am personally committed to helping women’s sport to come out of the current crisis stronger than ever, and I am working closely with the sector to ensure that that happens. As I have said before at this Dispatch Box, and as I have made clear to sporting bodies in receipt of public funding, I expect a fair share of that public funding to benefit women’s sport and physical activity.
As we have seen in recent months, sports clubs have an impact and reach that goes well beyond sport. During the pandemic, they have proven themselves bedrocks of their communities, hosting test centres, looking after the vulnerable and organising food deliveries. Hon. Members will be aware of the incredibly challenging circumstances that many of our sports currently face. My Department continues to work closely with sports, including both codes of rugby, to understand what support they might need.
In May of this year, rugby league received a £16 million support package from the Government to safeguard the immediate future of the sport for the communities it serves. The Government are also supporting the rugby league with more than £11 million of Sport England investment over the 2017 to 2021 period.
Women’s sport as a whole has come a long way in recent years. To choose just two events, the women’s Six Nations championship and women’s rugby world cup are fantastic events that shine a spotlight on brilliant women rugby stars. We are seeing the popularity of women’s sport continue to grow, with record audiences attending international and domestic women’s events and watching them on television.
These events are inspiring more women and girls to become active. The latest data from Sport England’s Active Lives survey in April this year showed that before covid, there were more than 210,000 more active women compared with the previous year, and we want to continue to encourage more women and girls to get active and build on the momentum that initiatives such as Sport England’s This Girl Can campaign have generated.
Domestically and globally, female rugby participation is growing at a faster rate than male participation. Overall, the RFU has said it is seeing 17% year-on-year growth in participation; as of June this year, there were 40,000 female registered players in more than 400 clubs, up from just 13,000 in 2012. Furthermore, 90,000 girls are taking part in rugby through schools, colleges and universities. The RFU has also developed a range of programmes to encourage women and girls to take part. Inner Warrior is a series of camps, which has benefited from Sport England funding, aimed at introducing women to rugby in a fun and accessible way. The programme started in 2016 and since then 23,000 women have taken part.
The All Schools programme was a 2015 rugby world cup legacy programme, which got 750 more state schools playing rugby and has seen 80,000 teenage girls take part. O2 Touch is a non-contact form of the game, which has 10,000 registered female players. The women and girls’ game remains a priority for the RFL, too, especially in the lead-up to the rugby league world cup in 2021. Its aim is to use the Women’s Super League to raise the profile of the game, increase commercial interest and revenue, and drive participation.
The Government have also helped to secure a wide range of major sporting events in this country for the next few years. The rugby league world cup 2021 will bring additional significant exposure on free-to-air TV. It will also, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire mentioned, be the first time that the men’s, women’s and wheelchair tournaments will take place at the same time. It will be a great opportunity to showcase the women’s game and encourage more people to get involved. We are continuing to explore a number of other hosting opportunities across the range of men’s and women’s elite and professional sports.
To conclude, the past few years have seen fantastic progress with women’s sport, including rugby, starting to get the profile it deserves. We definitely have our challenges, as my hon. Friend and others have mentioned, but we want women’s sport to continue to inspire increased participation in sport and physical activity. Women’s rugby is a hugely important part of that, and we will continue to support and raise the profile of it wherever and whenever we can. I once again thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate tonight to shine a light on women’s rugby and the vital role it plays in our communities.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote

The following is the list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy:

  

  Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney  North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall  Green) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
  Mark Spencer


  Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Richard Bacon (South  Norfolk) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr John Baron (Basildon and  Billericay) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Apsana Begum (Poplar and  Limehouse) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jake Berry (Rossendale and  Darwen) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mhairi Black (Paisley and  Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Bob Blackman (Harrow East)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen  North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge,  Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham)  (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Conor Burns (Bournemouth  West) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West  Derby) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Liam Byrne (Birmingham,  Hodge Hill) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Amy Callaghan (East  Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Gregory Campbell (East  Londonderry) (DUP)
  Sammy Wilson


  Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Simon Clarke  (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
  Bell Ribeiro-Addy


  Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
  Dawn Butler


  Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
  Rachel Hopkins


  Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Nadine Dorries (Mid  Bedfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Jack Dromey (Birmingham,  Erdington) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
  Jeremy Hunt


  Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
  Jonathan Edwards


  Katherine Fletcher (South  Ribble) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
  Bim Afolami


  Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)
  Caroline Nokes


  Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Graham Stringer


  Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
  Graham Stringer


  Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Neale Hanvey (Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Ms Harriet Harman  (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
  Fay Jones


  Dame Margaret Hodge  (Barking) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mrs Sharon Hodgson  (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
  Maria Caulfield


  Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
  Dehenna Davison


  Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
  Mohammad Yasin


  Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Alicia Kearns (Rutland and  Melton) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid  Derbyshire) (Con)
  William Wragg


  Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
  Kate Osborne


  Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
  Lloyd Russell-Moyle


  Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger  (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Karl McCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Andy McDonald  (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Stuart C. McDonald  (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
  Zarah Sultana


  Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
  Kate Osborne


  Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Stephen Metcalfe (South  Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
  Rebecca Harris


  Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
  Nadia Whittome


  Kirsten Oswald (East  Renfrewshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Mr Owen Paterson (North  Shropshire) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Sir Mike Penning (Hemel  Hempstead) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
  Peter Aldous


  Lucy Powell (Manchester  Central) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West  and Penge) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Barry Sheerman  (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
  Chris Elmore


  Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Jamie Stone (Caithness,  Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
  Wendy Chamberlain


  Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Mel Stride (Central Devon)  (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Alison Thewliss (Glasgow  Central) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
  Dawn Butler


  Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
  Chris Elmore


  Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
  Stuart Andrew


  Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady


  Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
  Liz Saville Roberts


  Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
  Patrick Grady